Plot Railroading: How much? [Archive] - Page 3 - Giant in the Playground Forums

Darth Ultron

2017-10-08, 10:23 PM

Well pick one, something that is worth diving into. For instance, what do you think the single biggest misunderstanding about your position on railroading? Not the whole thing, just a single critical point.

That Railroading can be good or bad, and good; And any Classic Normal game has to have the DM forcefully move things along the plot from time to time for the good of the game.

So, helpful definitions:

Classic Normal Game: So here I'm talking about a game with a DM(GM), Players and a Plot. Basically D&D and other games of that mold. There are other games, yes, but I'm not talking about them here.

And just to be clear:

DM: Author/Director/Referee/Manager, can ''do anything(in the game)''.
Player: Only, willingly, has control of a single character in the game world and nothing else.
Plot: A plot is the sequence of events in a story. Plot is the cause-and-effect relationship between events in a story: A fictional(ized) series of events that have some connection.

Then we have the two Not Normal Games, that have come up so far:

The Player Tyrant Game: This game has players that run the game and force or bully the DM to do what they want. The Players think the role of the DM is to ''run the game they want it run''. Most often this is seen in groups where ''everyone takes a turn as DM'' and the poor DM puts up with it and simply waits for their turn to be a player again and ''get back'' at the next DM.

The Second Life Game: This game is as close to real life simulation as he people playing it can get it(or want it). This game has no plot, much like real life, and very few amazing exciting things happen in the game, just like real life.

So for a Classic Normal Game the DM forcefully move things along the plot from time to time for the good of the game. Railroading is by far the best way, but I have though of six other ways:

Keep it Simple. Cartoon-like play. Example: HappyTown is full of good people, and one bad guy...and something bad happens! Guess who did it?
Quamtum Ogre. Does not matter at all what the players do, the DM just puts stuff right in front of them.
OOC. The DM tells the players everything and asks them to do things. ''Hey players I made a fun encounter behind door two, so pick that door!''
Player By In. Players want play the game and play along willingly.
Senseless Game. The game makes no sense, like a cartoon or anime or B type movie.
You simply have a dull, boring game where nothing much happens.

And Railroading: The DM forcefully advancing the plot; or more generally, simply having an event happen in the game.

And you get three big main types of actions that might be railroading, but not all ways:

Rule Railroading: A lot of players whine and cry about this one, but technically it does not exist. A DM can make up anything at any time ''using the rules'' and can ''make anything anything'', with really the only limit of the DM's game mastery. And most games allow a DM to even make things up and add them to the game. Though in most cases a player might be able to have their character figure out what happened in-game, and this is where game mastery is key. A good DM will have the rules explanation, but the bad DM, with little game mastery often has not choice by to go with Bad Railroading: "It just happens because I am DM!"

The in-game Logic of Reality Railroading: This gets a bit tricky as few people will ever agree on anything. And there is no one ''view'' on reality that is ''right'', except in the context of the game: Whatever the DM says IS. You can disagree, of course, but in the game it does not matter. As a game reality is not real, ''reality'' should not matter, but this one of the common spots for a player to cry Railroad. A good DM would be ready with ''real reality facts'' if they felt the need, but more so just some good social skills to get the player to understand that ''anything is possible." Of course a bad DM will just once again say ''because I said so!"

DM Whim: The DM controls the whole setting and can on a whim decided what characters or other things in the setting do or don't do or think or anything else. And again, there is no ''right'' or ''wrong'' here: it just whatever the DM says. This is the other common spot for a player to cry Railroad as they don't like something. And again this is more for the Dm's social skills to get the player to understand that ''anything is possible." Of course a bad DM will just once again say ''because I said so!"

Any of the above could be Railroading, but they also could not be Railroading. And, in general, the players will never know unless the Dm tells them.

A lot of people are stuck on the Jerk Bad Railroading: Where the DM is a Real Jerk and a Monster and does some Nightmare stuff. And the idea that Railroading is ''whatever the player(s) don't like.

I think this covers all my basic definitions....

Any questions? Comments? Concerns ? Before we move on?

OldTrees1

2017-10-08, 11:08 PM

That Railroading can be good or bad, and good; And any Classic Normal game has to have the DM forcefully move things along the plot from time to time for the good of the game.

So, helpful definitions:

So we are planning on sticking to this topic now.

I will note that you chose to exercise your power of naming the categories to try to normalize your kind of game. I am going to ignore that attempt unless your argument starts to depend on your kind of game being called normal.

Keep it Simple. Cartoon-like play. Example: HappyTown is full of good people, and one bad guy...and something bad happens! Guess who did it?
Quamtum Ogre. Does not matter at all what the players do, the DM just puts stuff right in front of them.
OOC. The DM tells the players everything and asks them to do things. ''Hey players I made a fun encounter behind door two, so pick that door!''
Player By In. Players want play the game and play along willingly.
Senseless Game. The game makes no sense, like a cartoon or anime or B type movie.
You simply have a dull, boring game where nothing much happens.

Warning: Sometimes Quantum Ogres are classified as Railroading. This goes into a level of nuance that seems too advanced for this discussion.

Sidenote: Thank you for updating your definition of Player Buy In. It adds some legitimacy to this list.

Any of the above could be Railroading, but they also could not be Railroading. And, in general, the players will never know unless the Dm tells them.
But since we are going to be talking about Railroading rather than players "crying railroading", it does not matter if the players know or not.

A lot of people are stuck on the Jerk Bad Railroading: Where the DM is a Real Jerk and a Monster and does some Nightmare stuff. And the idea that Railroading is ''whatever the player(s) don't like.

1) People tend to get stuck on the topic of Jerk DMs when speaking to a Jerk DM. Whether it is fair or not, you have branded yourself as a Jerk Railroading DM.
2) The ONLY person that is stuck on the idea that "Railroading is "whatever the players don't like" " is you. You have used that as a strawman of other peoples positions when they were talking about nothing of the sort.

Lorsa

2017-10-09, 07:31 AM

Maybe not?

Me: "in-world" or "in-game" logic is a bunch of made up junk that does not matter and can be ignored, changed or used on the whim of the DM.

You: "in-world" or "in-game" logic is something cared in stone on a huge pedestal over the game that all gamers must obey?

So maybe you can give an example?

I will try to give an example when I have more time (and am not at work), which unfortunately seems to happen rarely these days.

I don't necessarily mean all gamers must obey logic. I think most games would be better if one does, especially as it helps prevent the problem you are against here:

I'm very much against this. When the DM has to stop the game every five minutes to defend everything vs hostile players, your not even playing the game anymore.

I've never ever had to stop the game every five minutes to defend anything vs my players. Not once in my GMing life has that happened. It HAS happened that I've had to defend some things vs my very friendly players, but that is at most once every third game session.

Stay tuned for the Big Example.

I am tuned!

Wait...no. There is bad, neutral, and good railroading. It is not all good. Scroll back a couple pages.

You mean where people tried to explain that the thing you consider bad railroading is what other people mean when they say "railroading"?

But ok, you don't think all railroading is good. I've got no problems with that.

That Railroading can be good or bad, and good; And any Classic Normal game has to have the DM forcefully move things along the plot from time to time for the good of the game.

So, helpful definitions:

Classic Normal Game: So here I'm talking about a game with a DM(GM), Players and a Plot. Basically D&D and other games of that mold. There are other games, yes, but I'm not talking about them here.

And just to be clear:

DM: Author/Director/Referee/Manager, can ''do anything(in the game)''.
Player: Only, willingly, has control of a single character in the game world and nothing else.
Plot: A plot is the sequence of events in a story. Plot is the cause-and-effect relationship between events in a story: A fictional(ized) series of events that have some connection.

I am with you so far. The DM can "do anything" in the game, whereas the players only have one character reach. A plot is the sequence of events in a story. I can roughly agree with you here.

Then we have the two Not Normal Games, that have come up so far:

The Player Tyrant Game: This game has players that run the game and force or bully the DM to do what they want. The Players think the role of the DM is to ''run the game they want it run''. Most often this is seen in groups where ''everyone takes a turn as DM'' and the poor DM puts up with it and simply waits for their turn to be a player again and ''get back'' at the next DM.

The Second Life Game: This game is as close to real life simulation as he people playing it can get it(or want it). This game has no plot, much like real life, and very few amazing exciting things happen in the game, just like real life.

I don't think anyone here but you have possibly experienced the Player Tyrant Game. Your "Second Life Game" I wonder if it's something you've experienced yourself or is interpreting from what others' have told you. Because it is certainly possible to have amazing exciting things happen without a plot, or to have a plot (as in a sequence of events in a story, not necessarily pre-planned) even in a "simulation type" game.

Also, for more not-normal games, I have heard Apocalypse world is quite different. Perhaps check that up to expand your list? It has neither the strict "normal game" DM of D&D, not does it have tyrant players.

So for a Classic Normal Game the DM forcefully move things along the plot from time to time for the good of the game. Railroading is by far the best way, but I have though of six other ways:

Keep it Simple. Cartoon-like play. Example: HappyTown is full of good people, and one bad guy...and something bad happens! Guess who did it?
Quamtum Ogre. Does not matter at all what the players do, the DM just puts stuff right in front of them.
OOC. The DM tells the players everything and asks them to do things. ''Hey players I made a fun encounter behind door two, so pick that door!''
Player By In. Players want play the game and play along willingly.
Senseless Game. The game makes no sense, like a cartoon or anime or B type movie.
You simply have a dull, boring game where nothing much happens.

You don't believe the players themselves can advance the plot in any useful way even in a normal game? Why leave this option out? Or, as an alternative to your "OOC" one, make fun encounters behind door one as well as door two?

And Railroading: The DM forcefully advancing the plot; or more generally, simply having an event happen in the game.

No. No. No.

Wrong.

Disagreement.

The DM having an event happen in the game is NOT railroading. Never. It's not the same. This is where your definitions really break down, and this is a big disagreement between you and everyone else.

The DM can have plenty of things happening in game that are NOT railroading, including totally unexpected things like having assassins attack the PCs. Only some very specific types of events qualify as railroading. Railroading is a subset of "things happening in game that are of the DM's creation". It's not a generalization of it.

And you get three big main types of actions that might be railroading, but not all ways:

Rule Railroading: A lot of players whine and cry about this one, but technically it does not exist. A DM can make up anything at any time ''using the rules'' and can ''make anything anything'', with really the only limit of the DM's game mastery. And most games allow a DM to even make things up and add them to the game. Though in most cases a player might be able to have their character figure out what happened in-game, and this is where game mastery is key. A good DM will have the rules explanation, but the bad DM, with little game mastery often has not choice by to go with Bad Railroading: "It just happens because I am DM!"

The in-game Logic of Reality Railroading: This gets a bit tricky as few people will ever agree on anything. And there is no one ''view'' on reality that is ''right'', except in the context of the game: Whatever the DM says IS. You can disagree, of course, but in the game it does not matter. As a game reality is not real, ''reality'' should not matter, but this one of the common spots for a player to cry Railroad. A good DM would be ready with ''real reality facts'' if they felt the need, but more so just some good social skills to get the player to understand that ''anything is possible." Of course a bad DM will just once again say ''because I said so!"

DM Whim: The DM controls the whole setting and can on a whim decided what characters or other things in the setting do or don't do or think or anything else. And again, there is no ''right'' or ''wrong'' here: it just whatever the DM says. This is the other common spot for a player to cry Railroad as they don't like something. And again this is more for the Dm's social skills to get the player to understand that ''anything is possible." Of course a bad DM will just once again say ''because I said so!"

Any of the above could be Railroading, but they also could not be Railroading. And, in general, the players will never know unless the Dm tells them.

A lot of people are stuck on the Jerk Bad Railroading: Where the DM is a Real Jerk and a Monster and does some Nightmare stuff. And the idea that Railroading is ''whatever the player(s) don't like.

I think this covers all my basic definitions....

Any questions? Comments? Concerns ? Before we move on?

Since I think your definition of railroading is wrong and completely useless I don't see the need for commenting this last part in detail. The reason I say it is useless is that if you try to expand "railroading" to cover any event the DM places in the game, it becomes meaningless.

There are only four reasons I can think of right now that would motivate you to do as such. Please tell me which one it is, or explain to me what your motivation is if I failed to include the right answer.

Reason #1: Honestly not understanding what the rest of us are talking about. Failure to see the distinction between "any DM action" and "DM actions that are railroading".

Reason #2: Engaging in some form of muddying the waters or whataboutism in order to paint everything that all DMs do as railroading. Possibly in order to find moral legitimacy for one's own actual railroading (by our definition).

Reason #3: Failure to admit fault.

Reason #4: Trolling.

What reason DO you have? Why do you insist on this weird equality between "the DM having an event happen" and "railroading"? I honestly want to know.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-09, 07:47 AM

So we are planning on sticking to this topic now.

I will note that you chose to exercise your power of naming the categories to try to normalize your kind of game. I am going to ignore that attempt unless your argument starts to depend on your kind of game being called normal.

I'm not trying to say the Not Normal games are in anyway ''wrong'' or ''bad'' because they are ''not normal''. This is where I don't see, in your speak, the binary.

Your thinking that normal=good and right and not normal=bad and wrong.

I'm thinking: Normal=the vast majority of games are played this way. Not normal=more specialized smaller groups of players. I think it is safe to say that there are more players of D&D then most other RPG's. And the same is true for ''games with a GM, players, and a plot'' vs ''Other Ways''.

Really, I just want to make it clear I'm talking about the ''one'' type of game. There are other types of games, but they are not what I'm talking about. And I really want to avoid the ''I say X'' and someone jumps and attacks with ''nut na, the game Apocklipse World in a Toilet has Y!''.

Warning: Sometimes Quantum Ogres are classified as Railroading. This goes into a level of nuance that seems too advanced for this discussion.

I, myself, all ways classify the Quantum Ogre as Railroading and I'd call it Reverse Railroading myself. Instead of just changing one small thing like a locked door or a broken bridge, Reverse Railroading changes the entire world.

And at least half of all Railroading is subtitle and the players do have that small chance to do something...but Reverse Railroading gives the players no chance. Like say to advance the plot the DM wants the players to stay at the Broken Boot Inn, where encounter 5 is set. A easy Railroad here would be to just say ''all the other inns'' are full except the Broken Boot, and hope the players just have their characters stay there. But the players might do something like say ''we just camp'' outside of town or ''stay in a barn'', and this is where a bad DM might loose it and have trouble and say '' Um, there is no flat land anywhere and no barns". The Reverse Railroad is worse, no matter where the characters go and what they do, where ever they stop for the night is where encounter 5 will take place.

Sidenote: Thank you for updating your definition of Player Buy In. It adds some legitimacy to this list.

It was a bit miss-worded.

But since we are going to be talking about Railroading rather than players "crying railroading", it does not matter if the players know or not.

Again, the players can never really know unless it is a bad DM (''your characters jump no matter what you say because I'm the DM!") or unless the DM tells them. The whole set up to a normal game is the players don't know everything and just have to accept what is.

The whole ''in theory'' something is something is great for philosophy, but has no place in the real world.

1) People tend to get stuck on the topic of Jerk DMs when speaking to a Jerk DM. Whether it is fair or not, you have branded yourself as a Jerk Railroading DM.
2) The ONLY person that is stuck on the idea that "Railroading is "whatever the players don't like" " is you. You have used that as a strawman of other peoples positions when they were talking about nothing of the sort.

1)I'm perceived that way, yes.
2)Just as someone does not say the words ''the player does not like'' does not mean that it not what they are saying. Sure, lots of people dance around it with words like Player Agency...but Player Agency is ''anything a player does not like on a whim''. And most others definitions of Railroading to boil down to ''anything the players don't like''.

I've never ever had to stop the game every five minutes to defend anything vs my players. Not once in my GMing life has that happened. It HAS happened that I've had to defend some things vs my very friendly players, but that is at most once every third game session.

I guess the point would be more that you can imagine there might be a game like that.

I don't think anyone here but you have possibly experienced the Player Tyrant Game. Your "Second Life Game" I wonder if it's something you've experienced yourself or is interpreting from what others' have told you. Because it is certainly possible to have amazing exciting things happen without a plot, or to have a plot (as in a sequence of events in a story, not necessarily pre-planned) even in a "simulation type" game.

Sadly I have experienced both.

And it is simply impossible to have a plot with out pre planning. You can have a game with no plot.

The ''Game 0'' does seem to be popular, where instead of having just a ''session 0'' they have a whole game zero for a long time. This lets the game be Second Life like: The DM sits back and reads the novel setting to the players and the players interact with it. The game has no plot at this point. Eventually, after a while in Game 0, the players will, finnaly, pick something to do...and start a normal game with a plot.

You don't believe the players themselves can advance the plot in any useful way even in a normal game? Why leave this option out? Or, as an alternative to your "OOC" one, make fun encounters behind door one as well as door two?

Well, yes, but that is not what I'm talking about as that has nothing to do with Railroading. As the players only know ''the tiny part of the plot their characters know'', they can only advance that small part. Only the DM knows everything.

No. No. No.

Wrong.

Disagreement.

If you have a definition that is not ''all philosophy'' or ''anything the players don't like'', what is it?

What reason DO you have? Why do you insist on this weird equality between "the DM having an event happen" and "railroading"? I honestly want to know.

I'd love to get a good definition of Railroading that is not ''all philosophy'' or ''anything the players don't like''...if possible.

And show Railroading (DM Agency the good kind) is good for the game.

Pleh

2017-10-09, 09:08 AM

it is simply impossible to have a plot with out pre planning. You can have a game with no plot.

Not to detract from the more direct topic, but be careful of how you are using terms.

"Plot" can be defined as as the cumulative work of preplanning which the DM does.

It can also be defined as the chronological sequence of events in the game's ongoing story.

By the first definition, you are correct by definition. A game can either have pre planned work by the DM or operate more spontaneously by absolute improvisation. The DM could prepare material, and then abandon it and improvise instead, but essentially the story will either follow a predetermined set of events or it will not.

However, this does not mean that a game entirely conducted without pre planned material in a spontaneous manner couldn't also have a coherent and successful chronological series of events ("plot" by the latter definition).

OldTrees1

2017-10-09, 10:04 AM

Again, the players can never really know unless it is a bad DM (''your characters jump no matter what you say because I'm the DM!") or unless the DM tells them. The whole set up to a normal game is the players don't know everything and just have to accept what is.

The whole ''in theory'' something is something is great for philosophy, but has no place in the real world.

We are talking DM to DM about bad DMing. Specifically the kind of bad DMing that is betraying the trust the Players placed in you. A DM that invisibly acts like a jerk is still a jerk and those players would be better off trusting another DM.

This is not just a "in theory" concern. It is an abuse of power, betrayal of trust, and shirking of responsibility concern. Basically it is one of the tests for incompetence/malice.

So unless you want your discussion to get routinely derailed with people reminding you of this very fact, you would need to accept that we will be talking about the railroading the DM does rather than talk about the times the Players cried railroad.

1)I'm perceived that way, yes.
2)Just as someone does not say the words ''the player does not like'' does not mean that it not what they are saying. Sure, lots of people dance around it with words like Player Agency...but Player Agency is ''anything a player does not like on a whim''. And most others definitions of Railroading to boil down to ''anything the players don't like''.

2a) Player Agency does not mean what you paint it as meaning. Player Agency is a term for describing the concentration, quality, and scope of meaningful choices the PCs face. It makes no reference to player preferences or whims, it only references characteristics of the meaningful choices the DM grants the PCs.
2b) Nope. There still was nobody, except you, that is defining railroad anywhere close to "the player does not like".

Quertus

2017-10-09, 10:06 AM

The best thing about this thread?

Realizing what a great community we have here, in general. The reasoned, well-thought out, articulate responses reaffirm the fact that this is my preferred RPG forum, even while I have zero use for D&D 3.x.

So kudos to most of y'all.

Yeah, the Playground is a rare treasure. Thank you for reminding us to appreciate it.

I think you missed the point. The players have their characters refuse the job and in the background life goes on....ok? But in the game nothing happens. The players have the characters go to a bar and drink. Wow, exciting nothingness.

Oh and sure, a bit later the Dm has Guy #2 comes over with another plot thread. And if the players don't do that one, again, nothing happens.

Well, you've kinda missed the point, I think.

So, during day 22 of downtime, the PCs are approached by the agent. They reject his offer. During day 37 of downtime, they are approached by the second agent. They reject his offer, too.

That is a very vanilla description of events, worthy of, well, me. :smallredface: But it isn't the only way to describe it.

The GM could instead describe the local climate (people nervous because the big 5 guilds are at each other's throats). Maybe the barkeep apologizes about not getting his shipment of spiced brandy because the merchant guild is too busy fending off new tariffs (imposed by agents of the thieves guild, if you ask me) and dealing with an increase in "bandits" (also agents of the thieves guild, if you ask me) to be able to afford to put together expeditions to <insert wherever he imports his brandy from>.

Then the first agent comes along with his offer, which the PCs refuse.

Then the GM narrates how the climate changes over the next few weeks, with citizens increasingly walking around armed, prices on goods fluctuating wildly, and describing how the pent up terror of the citizens manifests. Maybe the party ends up in (or just aloofly watching) a barroom brawl. All the while, the GM rolls for the 2nd party the first agent hired, and how well their plan to preform the mission but blame it on a different guild is going.

Then the second plot hook is laid out, and the party doesn't take the bait.

Then the GM breaks into OOC, and says, "well, you all signed on for a game of X. I've presented two scenarios of X, and your characters have rejected both. Please explain why you rejected them, and what a scenario you would accept would look like". The party has a nice, healthy discussion about what they're really interested in (which should have happened before now - this is just a symptom of a failure of session 0). Perhaps the GM is even smart enough to craft the scenario and hook with the players this time.

The PCs go off on the adventure from hook number 3.

And, when they get back, there may be hell to pay with the guild that originally tried to hire them.

But there still won't be any spiced brandy.

Not to detract from the more direct topic, but be careful of how you are using terms.

"Plot" can be defined as as the cumulative work of preplanning which the DM does.

It can also be defined as the chronological sequence of events in the game's ongoing story.

By the first definition, you are correct by definition. A game can either have pre planned work by the DM or operate more spontaneously by absolute improvisation. The DM could prepare material, and then abandon it and improvise instead, but essentially the story will either follow a predetermined set of events or it will not.

However, this does not mean that a game entirely conducted without pre planned material in a spontaneous manner couldn't also have a coherent and successful chronological series of events ("plot" by the latter definition).

To expand on this slightly, there can be plenty of "plots" that the various NPCs are attempting to enact, like with the 5 guilds. But the plot of the PCs story is and should be whatever they choose it to be about. Quertus just wants to enjoy a good meal while doing his magical research, Cosi is trying to gather the funds necessary to revolutionize the fantasy world, and Darth Ultron is attempting to rewrite the dictionary. That's the story - the guild war is simply the backdrop for the pc's stories.

Now, yes, the pc's stories and the "backdrop" are often identical, but that doesn't mean that one should lose sight of the distinction.

Lorsa

2017-10-09, 10:21 AM

If you have a definition that is not ''all philosophy'' or ''anything the players don't like'', what is it?

I'd love to get a good definition of Railroading that is not ''all philosophy'' or ''anything the players don't like''...if possible.

And show Railroading (DM Agency the good kind) is good for the game.

You are a bit hung up on "anything the players don't like". Railroading isn't ANYTHING the players don't like, but since all other definitions given by people seem to be disliked by you, I WILL use a definition that IS player centric.

Railroading is when the DM makes the players feel as though they are merely spectators, rather than participants, in the story.

Players can dislike other things and sometimes mistakenly refer to those as 'railroading'. However, unless your goal is specifically to MAKE the players feel like spectators, if those feelings ARE invoked in them, you have done something wrong as a DM. That wrong is railroading.

So YES, railroading is experienced by the players. Theirs are the feelings you, as DM, are responsible for. It is the scale on which all your games are judged.

Cluedrew

2017-10-09, 10:26 AM

That Railroading can be good or bad, and good; And any Classic Normal game has to have the DM forcefully move things along the plot from time to time for the good of the game.OK, I will focus on this point.

Classic Normal Game: So here I'm talking about a game with a DM(GM), Players and a Plot. Basically D&D and other games of that mold. There are other games, yes, but I'm not talking about them here.First, lets call this a Darth Ultron Style Game, DUS game for short. Normal is subjective for one, for instance D&D isn't normal for me anymore, to save time I switched systems that resolve faster. Classic probably would refer to a type a game that I don't think many people play anymore.

Plot: A plot is the sequence of events in a story. Plot is the cause-and-effect relationship between events in a story: A fictional(ized) series of events that have some connection.I mean you could put unconnected events in a story so but that would be a waste of your time. So sure, some sort of connection, if not in terms of order of events that by setting, which will probably feed into the same central point later and so at a larger scope form into a cause and effect chain.

Railroading: The DM forcefully advancing the plot; or more generally, simply having an event happen in the game.And of course the linchpin of all this, what do we mean by railroading. I also read you other types of railroading sections, but I've already quoted enough so lets leave them out.

So, that I think forms the basis for this conversation. I with this information I can say you seem to have defined railroading as "GM driven plot advancement", which is to say the GM making things happen in the game. I got that just by combining the definition of plot with railroading, and taking "advancing the plot" to mean "continuing the sequence of events in a story". Furthermore, in a DUS Game this is required to keep the plot advancing. Hence railroading is good if it advances the plot in a good way (so that people have fun) and bad if it advances the plot in a bad way (so that people don't have fun). Does that sound like your position?

OldTrees1

2017-10-09, 10:31 AM

You are a bit hung up on "anything the players don't like". Railroading isn't ANYTHING the players don't like, but since all other definitions given by people seem to be disliked by you, I WILL use a definition that IS player centric.

Railroading is when the DM makes the players feel as though they are merely spectators, rather than participants, in the story.

Players can dislike other things and sometimes mistakenly refer to those as 'railroading'. However, unless your goal is specifically to MAKE the players feel like spectators, if those feelings ARE invoked in them, you have done something wrong as a DM. That wrong is railroading.

So YES, railroading is experienced by the players. Theirs are the feelings you, as DM, are responsible for. It is the scale on which all your games are judged.

I advise against that definition. Darth Ultron has already been trying to conflate railroading vs "players crying railroading". Obviously both are concerns but which do we want to talk about and can we please try to force Darth Ultron to treat them as the different things they are?

kyoryu

2017-10-09, 11:15 AM

I've described certain types of games, that I'll generalize as "the main RPG loop" for now, as being this pattern:

GM: This is the situation. What do you do?
Player: I do the thing
GM: This is the new situation. What do you do?

I humbly submit that railroading occurs when, at some scale, the GM's response is the same regardless of the player action.

GM: You can go north or south from the town. What do you do?
Player: I go north.
GM: There's an ogre there.

GM: You can go north or south from the town. What do you do?
Player: I go south.
GM: There's an ogre there.

This is, of course, the Quantum Ogre, that is there regardless of what the players do, and why it is an example of railroading.

In a more strict definition, that's highly unlikely, but it is certainly possible that the situation will not change until the player performs an action that will allow the GM to present the next, planned situation.

GM: You can go north or south from the town. What do you do?
Player: I go south.
GM: There's a caravan. The leader walks up to you. What do you do?

GM: You can go north or south from the town. What do you do?
Player: I go north.
GM: There's a blizzard. It's impenetrable. You turn around.
Player: I go south.
GM: There's a caravan. The leader walks up to you. What do you do?

This is presenting options, but making one or more of them lead to nothing. In this case, there's no way to avoid the caravan. Options that don't lead to the caravan are closed off. (Note that the actual "there's a blizzard" bit probably took some actual game time, but ultimately really had no way of advancing.)

This is the player-facing bit. From the GM's side, a railroad (which I maintain as a separate thing, and a necessary precursor to railroading) is a set of situations that the GM has prepared, that the players will go through, in order, without deviation. I maintain this is a necessary precursor because:

1) If there is no pre-set list of situations, there is no need to push the players towards a specific one, and the result of "I do the thing" can vary.
2) If there is a pre-set list of situations, but deviation is allowed, then you aren't forcing a particular situation.

Note that things can be "railroad-y" without being a pure railroad by this definition. I'd even argue that, outside of one-shots, that's the more common situation. You may have an initial situation A, which can lead to situations B or C. But both B and C will inevitably lead to D. That misses the strict definition, at least in parts, but fits the idea and which is why I said "at some scale". You can consider A+B+C to be a kind of large-scale situation, which inevitably leads to D, to get to a "railroad" definition. So even with this fairly strict definition, there's a lot of grey area to consider.

I advise against that definition. Darth Ultron has already been trying to conflate railroading vs "players crying railroading". Obviously both are concerns but which do we want to talk about and can we please try to force Darth Ultron to treat them as the different things they are?

The biggest problem with this definition is that the clear solution to it is "get better at manipulating," which I believe is ultimately impossible, and at odds with actually, you know, being honest with people.

You wanna railroad? Railroad. Tell your players they're getting on the train, and have a good time. There is nothing wrong with railroading, provided that everyone is on-board. There is everything wrong with railroading when people don't want to play that type of game, and are only playing under the condition that it's not a railroad game.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-09, 04:35 PM

However, this does not mean that a game entirely conducted without pre planned material in a spontaneous manner couldn't also have a coherent and successful chronological series of events ("plot" by the latter definition).

But if the game has ''something'' exactly like a plot...then it has a plot, right?

I don't really get the whole obsession of saying ''my game does not have a plot'' and at the same time saying ''my game has something just like a plot, but not a plot, but is, but is not". A plotless game can be fun...to some people. So why not just own that?

This is not just a "in theory" concern. It is an abuse of power, betrayal of trust, and shirking of responsibility concern. Basically it is one of the tests for incompetence/malice.

Sure I guess this is true in some sort of cosmic court of morality or something....but does not really mean anything in reality.

So unless you want your discussion to get routinely derailed with people reminding you of this very fact, you would need to accept that we will be talking about the railroading the DM does rather than talk about the times the Players cried railroad.

I fully expect plenty of people to take the ''railroading is anything the players don't like'' side.

2a) Player Agency does not mean what you paint it as meaning. Player Agency is a term for describing the concentration, quality, and scope of meaningful choices the PCs face. It makes no reference to player preferences or whims, it only references characteristics of the meaningful choices the DM grants the PCs.
2b) Nope. There still was nobody, except you, that is defining railroad anywhere close to "the player does not like".

2A)Yea, I could do a whole thread on tyrant selfish Player Agency and how and why it ruins games....next time.

2B)I'll point it out as soon as it happens...again.

Well, you've kinda missed the point, I think.

Well, your describing a Dull game here Or the Second Life type game. At least until you get to the OOC part where the DM just says ''hey what is up players?" The Dull game has Adventurers, Heroes, Agents or whatever sitting around in a tavern drinking or doing other mundane things. Sure the game is not dull if that is what everyone wants to do, like everyone made game characters for the game, but they just want to do Second Life stuff.

But the plot of the PCs story is and should be whatever they choose it to be about. Quertus just wants to enjoy a good meal while doing his magical research, Cosi is trying to gather the funds necessary to revolutionize the fantasy world, and Darth Ultron is attempting to rewrite the dictionary. That's the story - the guild war is simply the backdrop for the pc's stories.

Having the whole world as a backdrop is pointless...you might as well just not have a world. And saying the Plot must be whatever the players want and demand...is the Tyrant Player game.

Railroading is when the DM makes the players feel as though they are merely spectators, rather than participants, in the story.

So ''if the players feel bad and don't like it, it is Railroading''. Look OldTrees, here is someone saying if a poor player does not like something it is Railroading. I'm still waiting for any railroading definition that is not just ''what the players don't like''...

But, ok, that side, how do you judge being ''a spectator?" Like 99% of the game would should move along without Directly Controlling Everything like Side Table DMs. Like I've said, in a normal game the Pcs only have control of their character, so they can only do a very, very, very, very limited amount of ''participation''. The characters are in the spotlight, yes, but that does not mean the rest of the world is frozen in time unless the Almighty Players choose to activate it.

And in just about any game a whinny player can ''feel like a spectator and not like the Badwrongfun!'' Like say the bad guy wizard uses the spell web and trapped the poor players, so all the players break down and cry 'Railroad! Because we are now just spectators in the game!"

So, that I think forms the basis for this conversation. I with this information I can say you seem to have defined railroading as "GM driven plot advancement", which is to say the GM making things happen in the game. I got that just by combining the definition of plot with railroading, and taking "advancing the plot" to mean "continuing the sequence of events in a story". Furthermore, in a DUS Game this is required to keep the plot advancing. Hence railroading is good if it advances the plot in a good way (so that people have fun) and bad if it advances the plot in a bad way (so that people don't have fun). Does that sound like your position?

Sounds ok.

It's a bit odd to call it ''my way'', as the vast majority of games are that ''way''. I get that some people in this thread are super hard core against classic normal games like D&D, and I kinda wounder why they even bother to post. You'd think they would stick to threads about there ''something something'' game and ''something stuff'' (whatever that something is).

I advise against that definition. Darth Ultron has already been trying to conflate railroading vs "players crying railroading". Obviously both are concerns but which do we want to talk about and can we please try to force Darth Ultron to treat them as the different things they are?

Look there is no problem with a player not liking something or complaining or such.....I'm just saying it should not be called ''Railroading'' any more then it should be called ''Turkey Sandwich".

jayem

2017-10-09, 04:44 PM

So for a Classic Normal Game the DM forcefully move things along the plot from time to time for the good of the game. Railroading is by far the best way, but I have though of six other ways:

Keep it Simple. Cartoon-like play. Example: HappyTown is full of good people, and one bad guy...and something bad happens! Guess who did it?
Quantum Ogre. Does not matter at all what the players do, the DM just puts stuff right in front of them.
OOC. The DM tells the players everything and asks them to do things. ''Hey players I made a fun encounter behind door two, so pick that door!''
Player By In. Players want play the game and play along willingly.

Senseless Game. The game makes no sense, like a cartoon or anime or B type movie.
You simply have a dull, boring game where nothing much happens.

I'd say the first 4 are more or less have run on railroad assumptions (+of course the stereotype railroad).
Stereotype railroad, the players have things off path they (at first) think they can interact with, but when they try they can't.
There are of course great advantages to simplicity, but in this case the necessity is so that there is nothing off path for them to interact with anyway.
Quantum Ogre, as DU eloquently put, the world moves round to keep the group on the rails (there are of course times when it isn't this, e.g. if there really is an ogre group n&s and your only QO'ing the description and stats)
OOC, the DM has to be explicit about his railroading (however nicely he does it)
Player-buy-in, the players stay on the rails by themselves (really this needs a combination of the others as else they don't know how to jump through the hoops of buying in, and conversely without them buying in, the other methods will lead to resentment)

Each in themselves not terrible (in some context and short bursts) but the need for them is a worrying sign.

The other two are the only options for the 'non-railroad games' and are pejoratively described. For both DU assumes that all DM's (and especially DU) are fundamentally stupid. Either by brushing everything out the way (which really comes back to quantum ogre, where the ogre is always on the path not taken).
Or totally unable to follow consequences and keep things in his head for two minutes, a kind of choice paralayis bought on by only two choices where he isn't even making the choice.
[the players have shipwrecked a few hundred miles of new amsterdam, after escaping from the shipwreck, making landfall]
DU: "To the east is a old damaged boat, which you could use to go back to the carribean sea famous for it's pirates to the west is the hostilejungle where the native indian tribes* live.
Player: Let's just think about this.
DU: "Oh no, I can't cope, they could choose the sea or they could choose the land. My brain is exploding with the sheer possibilities. Anything could happen"
Player: We'll go east
[reverse order if needed]
DU: As you sit in the passenger the spaceship, pink unicorns in tutus ...
Everyone: What!!!!
DU: Um you get on the boat and it um does totally um boaty things as you um boaty about.
Everyone: What!!!!
[]
DU: There's nothing else is there, I've thought of everything. There's just nothing that follows logically from being on a damaged boat in pirate infested waters, trying to get to New Amsterdam.

I think you might do a better job than you think if you give it a try.

*I'm not sure this works historically this close.

Segev

2017-10-09, 05:02 PM

Let's try a simple example and question.

There is a bridge over a 1000-ft. deep chasm with shallow rapids and jagged rocks at the bottom. The bridge is rickety, made of wooden planks tied across two ropes with poorly-secured rope railings.

The player says, "I will try to carefully walk across the bridge."

Which of the following is the more logical outcome for the DM to call?

A) Make an Agility check. If you fail, you put your foot between the twisting boards and are dangling for dear life from the bottom of the bridge, your ankle your most secure fastening point.

B) Make a Pickpocketing check. If you fail, the bridge turns into a kangaroo and kicks you unconscious, leaving you hovering in mid-air halfway across the chasm.

OldTrees1

2017-10-09, 05:23 PM

Sure I guess this is true in some sort of cosmic court of morality or something....but does not really mean anything in reality.

It means everything in this context.

You are going to try to argue that not all railroading is bad, so we clearly need to remember both what railroading is & be able to make statements to its moral character. Thus an abuse of power, betrayal of trust, and shirking of responsibility are all relevant concerns to this discussion regardless of if the DM can hide the abuse/betrayal/shirking from the Players.

2A)Yea, I could do a whole thread on tyrant selfish Player Agency and how and why it ruins games....next time.

Really, and how does a DM be a Tyrant Player? The DM is always in complete control over the scope, quality, and concentration of the meaningful choices the PCs face. Player Agency cannot be tyrannical unless you are calling the DM a tyrant.

I fully expect plenty of people to take the ''railroading is anything the players don't like'' side.

2B)I'll point it out as soon as it happens...again.

And at that time I will correct your misrepresentation. If you want us to stay on a single topic, don't create misrepresentations that people would be willing to derail in order to correct.

So ''if the players feel bad and don't like it, it is Railroading''. Look OldTrees, here is someone saying if a poor player does not like something it is Railroading. I'm still waiting for any railroading definition that is not just ''what the players don't like''...
*Red Flag* Flagrant attempt to misrepresent

Here is what they actually said

You are a bit hung up on "anything the players don't like". Railroading isn't ANYTHING the players don't like, but since all other definitions given by people seem to be disliked by you, I WILL use a definition that IS player centric.

Railroading is when the DM makes the players feel as though they are merely spectators, rather than participants, in the story.

Read that first paragraph:
They got fed up with trying to instruct you on the nuanced or even merely technically accurate definitions of railroading. So they gave into your whining by providing an erroneous definition (that anyone reading there post knows they realize is erroneous) merely because it was at least better than your disaster of an attempt at defining railroading.

Even then they did not say it was "something the players did not like" they said it their erroneous definition was "something that made the players feel railroaded".

Quertus

2017-10-09, 05:30 PM

Having the whole world as a backdrop is pointless...you might as well just not have a world. And saying the Plot must be whatever the players want and demand...is the Tyrant Player game.

You've definitely missed the point here. Let me try again.

The Plot of these threads is whatever direction us players take it in.

Now, some games, just like some threads / forums, are required to stick very close to their topic. Some games, just like some threads / forums, have no such requirement, yet people still stick close to the stated topic. And, in other games, or threads / forums, the discussions stray far afield.

In all three of these cases, the plot of the thread is what the posters have made of it. The Plot of the game is what the players make of it. That's just a statement of fact.

Now, saying that that's good and right and just, and how it should be in an RPG, is a statement of opinion.

...

Having the whole world as a backdrop for the plot is actually a cool tool, used in various media. Now, not many GMs enjoy this sort of game (aside from "jerk tyrant" GMs who don't want the PCs messing with their perfect world). Which is why it is incumbent upon GMs to create a game that matches their players' intended plot.

If the GM does their job right, it isn't a problem.

But, if there's a failure of Session 0, and the players miscommunicated their intentions, or their intentions changed, or the GM flubbed their "listen to the players", "describe their intended adventure", or "create PC-friendly adventure" rolls, then there can be problems.

At this point, the GM needs to decide whether to have their intended adventure / the world simply serve as a backdrop for the pc's story, or whether they want to try to integrate the two.

Cluedrew

2017-10-09, 07:28 PM

Hey, if we want something that players don't like that definitely not railroading, let's talk about 2D8HP's "empty room" experience. Which is to say the GM had nothing prepared, asked the players for hooks, and when provided with them didn't pull on them at all. It is not railroading because it did not force the plot along a preplanned route, but 2D8HP didn't have fun.

To Darth Ultron: Great, I'm glad I got that much down. I wanted to confirm that before moving on to this point:
Railroading: The DM forcefully advancing the plot; or more generally, simply having an event happen in the game.Yes it is the same quote as last time. But you see last time I focused on the first part "The DM forcefully advancing the plot", this time I want to talk about "or more generally, simply having an event happen in the game."

Using the definition of plot we did last time, that then becomes "simply having plat advance in the game" as occurring events create plot advancement. Which is not the same thing as the GM advancing the plot, because there other sources of plot advancement/events occurring in game. Namely the players. And I know you have some issues with players (more than usual it seems to me, part of the reason I separated out the DUS Game) but let's hold back on a quality judgement for a moment. When a player states their character takes an action or makes an attempt that creates an event in the world. Therefore you have the case that player action falls under the umbrella of railroading as well. Which A) makes the term hugely broad and B) contradicts the definition of "GM driven plot advancement" before. So I'm going to ask, is that what you meant? Or did you mean something else.

And yes I spent a post to see if a half sentence was misworded. Because when I said focused and clear I meant it, or I'll try at least.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-10, 01:51 AM

I'd say the first 4 are more or less have run on railroad assumptions (+of course the stereotype railroad).

Well, really all of them are ''how to keep a plot on track''.

DU: "To the east is a old damaged boat,

I don't get your example...

The player says, "I will try to carefully walk across the bridge."

Which of the following is the more logical outcome for the DM to call?

Well, sadly this is dull rules stuff, but half of ''A''. I'd say they would fall off the bridge if they fail the check not get caught in the lame cartoon like ''oh no''.

It means everything in this context.

You are going to try to argue that not all railroading is bad, so we clearly need to remember both what railroading is & be able to make statements to its moral character. Thus an abuse of power, betrayal of trust, and shirking of responsibility are all relevant concerns to this discussion regardless of if the DM can hide the abuse/betrayal/shirking from the Players.

But the abuse of power, betrayal of trust, and shirking of responsibility are only for bad railroading. Unless your going to try an make the point that it covers all Railroading...somehow.

Really, and how does a DM be a Tyrant Player? The DM is always in complete control over the scope, quality, and concentration of the meaningful choices the PCs face. Player Agency cannot be tyrannical unless you are calling the DM a tyrant.

Well, a DM would be a Tyrant DM, of course. So a DM can be a tyrant, but is not one by default. By default a DM is ''a god'' and can do anything in the game world, but a ''DM god'' is not a tyrant if they say ''It starts to rain right before your planned picnic''.

And at that time I will correct your misrepresentation. If you want us to stay on a single topic, don't create misrepresentations that people would be willing to derail in order to correct.

It will happen soon enough, lots of people are stuck on this.

Even then they did not say it was "something the players did not like" they said it their erroneous definition was "something that made the players feel railroaded".

Except you can't have the definition of Railroad be ''something that made the players feel railroaded''. And even so, that does just boil down to ''whatever the players don't like''.

I guess I missed the post where he had some nice, good definition of Railroading that had no ''not like'' or ''feelings'' in it.

In all three of these cases, the plot of the thread is what the posters have made of it. The Plot of the game is what the players make of it. That's just a statement of fact.

Now, saying that that's good and right and just, and how it should be in an RPG, is a statement of opinion.

Right, you can get three ''types'' of games:
1.Normal Classic game: Has a plot that is made to be followed.
2.Not Normal game: Has a plot that is just there to be maybe followed if the players feel like it. Often, this is a Second Life type game, at least until the players say ''hey lets follow that plot''.
3.Random game: Has no plot or any other type of structure.

But like I said, I'm only talking about the first one: the game has a plot that is made to be followed.

Hey, if we want something that players don't like that definitely not railroading, let's talk about 2D8HP's "empty room" experience. Which is to say the GM had nothing prepared, asked the players for hooks, and when provided with them didn't pull on them at all. It is not railroading because it did not force the plot along a preplanned route, but 2D8HP didn't have fun.

I'm not sure I get this one...

1.DM had nothing planned.
2.DM did the ''option B'' of asking the players for plot hooks
3.The DM did not use the plot hooks? And the DM had no fun?

there other sources of plot advancement/events occurring in game. Namely the players.

I never said the players could not advance the plot, but the players can only do it in very, very, very limited ways. First a player only has control of a single character and is limited by what that single character can do in the game. Second, the player is limited by only having the single perspective of that single character and only knowing what that character sees, hears and knows.

For example: Set up: the character knows a firebug will strike once it gets dark, but does not know where in the town it will happen. So the player tries a dozen wacky things that all fail, but time runs out as the sunsets and they still don't know anything useful. A character sees a barn on fire. The player can then say ''oh, my character goes and puts out the fire''. But if a small fire is smoldering in a barn and slowly growing, there is no way for a character and player to know that...unless the character, by chance, was next to or inside that one barn at that exact time.

When a player states their character takes an action or makes an attempt that creates an event in the world. Therefore you have the case that player action falls under the umbrella of railroading as well. Which A) makes the term hugely broad and B) contradicts the definition of "GM driven plot advancement" before. So I'm going to ask, is that what you meant? Or did you mean something else.

It is good to get ''misswordings'' out of the way...

I did mean something else. I can see how the two are similar from that.

Both a DM and a Player can do direct and obvious take an action or makes an attempt that creates an event. There is no difference between a DM having an evil ruler saying ''Call out the dark hounds and hunt them meddling adventurers down'' or a Player having a character say ''we must free all the prisoners in the dark dungeon." Lets say ''Type A'' action.

But I'm talking mostly about ''Type Z'' actions of:
1.The DM controls everything in the game world not just characters, but everything else too.
2.The DM knows a vast amount more information about everything in the game world then the players do.

The second one is the real important one: the DM takes an action or makes an attempt that creates an event because they know the game/setting/plot details.

OldTrees1

2017-10-10, 02:31 AM

But the abuse of power, betrayal of trust, and shirking of responsibility are only for bad railroading. Unless your going to try an make the point that it covers all Railroading...somehow.

So you are willing to accept that we will be talking about railroading regardless of if the DM does/can hide it from the players? Glad to hear it. Otherwise you had no chance of even touching the concept of non bad railroading. (It is a truism that you must be willing to talk about X in order to talk about X. To talk about railroading you must talk about railroading)

Well, a DM would be a Tyrant DM, of course. So a DM can be a tyrant, but is not one by default. By default a DM is ''a god'' and can do anything in the game world, but a ''DM god'' is not a tyrant if they say ''It starts to rain right before your planned picnic''.

So you accept that Player Agency (a description of the characteristics of the choices granted by the DM to the PCs) cannot be an example of Tyrannical Player because a Tyrannical approach to Player Agency would be a Tyrant DM not a Tyrant Player.

I guess I missed the post where he had some nice, good definition of Railroading that had no ''not like'' or ''feelings'' in it.
He gave in to the whining you aimed at the good definitions other posters had provided. Aka those based in "DM action and DM intent in the DM mind" or "Objective statement about the campaign flow across different possible reactions rather than in a linear slice".

At this point if you ignore that post, then this subthread is concluded.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-10, 06:22 AM

So you are willing to accept that we will be talking about railroading regardless of if the DM does/can hide it from the players? Glad to hear it. Otherwise you had no chance of even touching the concept of non bad railroading. (It is a truism that you must be willing to talk about X in order to talk about X. To talk about railroading you must talk about railroading)

Yes?

So you accept that Player Agency (a description of the characteristics of the choices granted by the DM to the PCs) cannot be an example of Tyrannical Player because a Tyrannical approach to Player Agency would be a Tyrant DM not a Tyrant Player.

No?
A Tyrant DM can change things by themselves.
A Tyrant Player is forcing (most of the time) the DM to do things.

He gave in to the whining you aimed at the good definitions other posters had provided. Aka those based in "DM action and DM intent in the DM mind" or "Objective statement about the campaign flow across different possible reactions rather than in a linear slice".

At this point if you ignore that post, then this subthread is concluded.

Guess I missed it. Too bad ''intent'' would be needed for a Railroad definition too.

Segev

2017-10-10, 06:52 AM

Well, sadly this is dull rules stuff, but half of ''A''. I'd say they would fall off the bridge if they fail the check not get caught in the lame cartoon like ''oh no''.

Good! So there are things which are natural consequences of walking across a rickety bridge, and things which are not.

"GM whim" or "totally random" or whathaveyou as the only thing that could happen would allow for (b), (a), or anything else. But you can see that (A) was more logical than (B), and thus there is a non-random criterion. And you can even come up with what you thought was more logical still.

Now, the players see this bridge, and say, "Crossing that bridge seems dangerous. I would like to use levitate and pull myself across, so I'm not putting weight on it and can't fall."

This is a logical application of powers which changes the outcome. Would you still demand the agility check and make them fall if they failed?

Lorsa

2017-10-10, 07:15 AM

I advise against that definition. Darth Ultron has already been trying to conflate railroading vs "players crying railroading". Obviously both are concerns but which do we want to talk about and can we please try to force Darth Ultron to treat them as the different things they are?

I think any attempts to define railroading in a dictionary sense has problems, which I tried to explain in my first post in this thread.

At this point, my whole aim is to try and make DU understand what we mean with railroading, so I will use any method possible.

The way we learn new words as children is by being given various examples of things that are called the word until we finally "get it". Perhaps that is what we need to do with railroading as well; generate a large set of long-winded examples and hope that we can be understood.

Nevertheless, I DO think that one of the consequences of railroading is that players feel like spectators rather than participants, so the attempt isn't too bad is it? I mean, DU has misunderstood or rejected basically all other definitions...

I've described certain types of games, that I'll generalize as "the main RPG loop" for now, as being this pattern:

GM: This is the situation. What do you do?
Player: I do the thing
GM: This is the new situation. What do you do?

I humbly submit that railroading occurs when, at some scale, the GM's response is the same regardless of the player action.

GM: You can go north or south from the town. What do you do?
Player: I go north.
GM: There's an ogre there.

GM: You can go north or south from the town. What do you do?
Player: I go south.
GM: There's an ogre there.

This is, of course, the Quantum Ogre, that is there regardless of what the players do, and why it is an example of railroading.

I've always thought there is something wrong with the Quantum Ogre example and especially referring to it as an example of railroading. After some thinking, I've come to realize that perhaps it is looking at the game at the wrong "scale" (in your definition), and also that it tries to classify the GM preparing 'any' encounter as railroading (which gets weird as the GM presenting situations shouldn't be railroading, should it? that's what DU is saying).

The way I view the game is like this:

GM: What do you do?
Player: We remain in the city.
GM: You are ambushed by a street gang.

GM: What do you do?
Player: We leave the city by foot, following the roads.
GM: There's an ogre ambush.

GM: What do you do?
Player: We leave the city by foot, using the forest trails.
GM: You encounter a troll cave.

GM: What do you do?
Player: We leave the city by hitching a ride with a large caravan.
GM: There's a mutiny where the hired mercenary guards are trying to kill and rob the merchant.

Trying to make a scenario or example based on the GM "presenting" a simple binary choice (which is largely irrelevant as the roads are thought to be identical) and having the encounter be the same is... well... not really how most roleplaying games work is it? Normally, there are a large amount of choices the players can make that should have an impact. Whether or not the take the north or south road, given no other contexts, seems to have little impact on the probability of meeting an ogre.

I guess the main difference between the north and south road is that one will lead to City X whereas the other to City Y. So if we think of the start as A and the ogre as B, the sequence can either go:

A+B+X or A+B+Y.

So, at some scale, the outcome IS different, even if they both lead through B (unlike your example where both B and C lead to D.

Or, what happens if the GM mixes it up a bit more and goes A+B+X or A+Y+B and thus places the ogre after city Y instead of before as for city X, in case they take the south road?

Looking at the small scale, the situations are now: A+B or A+Y, which are clearly different, and after that they become B+X or Y+B which are ALSO different.

For longer chains it gets even more difficult to think of the quantum ogre as railroading:

A+B+X+C+D+E or A+Y+F+G+H+B.

Or, to put it another way, I think the railroading in the Quantum Ogre example actually occurs at the presentation of the two options. If the GM says "you can leave the city either by the north or south road", they have ALREADY restricted the player's agency. The GM should say "there are two roads leaving the city, the north one is surrounded by forest whereas the south one leads over the plains" and then wait for player input. The PCs can leave the city in many different ways; alone, on foot, on horse, with a caravan, following a road, going through the wilderness etc etc. I definitely agree that all of these ways should NOT lead to the same outcome, but as long as ogres are known to roam both roads; why couldn't one assault lonely travelers on either of them?

Maybe I am getting too lost in the example. I mean, I do agree that you should give your players choices, and that those choices should have an impact on the progression of the game and the story. That's just basic GMing, no?

The biggest problem with this definition is that the clear solution to it is "get better at manipulating," which I believe is ultimately impossible, and at odds with actually, you know, being honest with people.

You wanna railroad? Railroad. Tell your players they're getting on the train, and have a good time. There is nothing wrong with railroading, provided that everyone is on-board. There is everything wrong with railroading when people don't want to play that type of game, and are only playing under the condition that it's not a railroad game.

Eh. If your solution to ANYTHING is "get better at manipulating", you have issues that goes far beyond bad GMing practice. The obvious solution to me is to change the behavior that leads to the players feeling like spectators in the GM's story. As you said, it is ultimately impossible to get enough at manipulating, so why do you consider it to be an option anyway?

Also, I think we should do well with differentiating a "railroad" from "railroading". Yes, a railroad is a prerequisite for railroading, but having one doesn't necessarily lead to railroading. You could, as you said, be honest and say "hey guys, I made a railroad, wanna follow it?" and get rid of all the horrible railroading. I've always viewed railroading, the verb, as what you do to make your players follow the railroad without their consent.

Which is why making a railroad is okay, but railroading is not (the way I see it anyway).

Sure I guess this is true in some sort of cosmic court of morality or something....but does not really mean anything in reality.

Morality has ALL THE MEANING in reality and basically NONE in any cosmic court (whose existence is unproven). It is in reality people will be hurt. It is in reality their lives will be affected.

So ''if the players feel bad and don't like it, it is Railroading''. Look OldTrees, here is someone saying if a poor player does not like something it is Railroading. I'm still waiting for any railroading definition that is not just ''what the players don't like''...

That is not what I said. I was talking about a very specific feeling. There's more than one you know?

But, ok, that side, how do you judge being ''a spectator?" Like 99% of the game would should move along without Directly Controlling Everything like Side Table DMs. Like I've said, in a normal game the Pcs only have control of their character, so they can only do a very, very, very, very limited amount of ''participation''. The characters are in the spotlight, yes, but that does not mean the rest of the world is frozen in time unless the Almighty Players choose to activate it.

If you've encountered games where you've been a participator and games where you've been a spectator, judging the difference really isn't all that hard.

And in just about any game a whinny player can ''feel like a spectator and not like the Badwrongfun!'' Like say the bad guy wizard uses the spell web and trapped the poor players, so all the players break down and cry 'Railroad! Because we are now just spectators in the game!"

Well, if your players yell RAILROAD, you should at the very least LISTEN TO THEM and try to understand why they feel that way. Could be that it isn't railroading, but there's some other negative emotion that's been invoked by your DMing. LISTEN TO YOUR PLAYERS! That's just basic decency.

Look there is no problem with a player not liking something or complaining or such.....I'm just saying it should not be called ''Railroading'' any more then it should be called ''Turkey Sandwich".

No. Some complaints are due to railroading, whereas others aren't. But you didn't understand any other definition, so I figured this one would be better?

Right, you can get three ''types'' of games:
1.Normal Classic game: Has a plot that is made to be followed.
2.Not Normal game: Has a plot that is just there to be maybe followed if the players feel like it. Often, this is a Second Life type game, at least until the players say ''hey lets follow that plot''.
3.Random game: Has no plot or any other type of structure.

But like I said, I'm only talking about the first one: the game has a plot that is made to be followed.

I see now.

When you talk about "Normal Classic game", it's not actually what the rest of us are playing. You are really talking about "The Classic Railroading game".

So, I figured out my games are more like your #2; except that lots of amazing exciting things happen, and the players are usually extremely satisfied.

A big problem is that you think that "plot" has to be set in stone before the game. A plot as a "sequence of events in a story" does not equate it being predetermined by the DM (or anyone else). First off, the "story" you want to tell is the one of the PCs, so whatever else happens in the world is actually just background noise and not part of the plot. The plot is the scenes the player's encounter. The game as played at the table. THAT is the plot. And it can sure as hell be improvised and STILL provide a good, coherent story. I kid you not! I know it may seem shocking but it's the truth!

Pleh

2017-10-10, 08:31 AM

But if the game has ''something'' exactly like a plot...then it has a plot, right?

I don't really get the whole obsession of saying ''my game does not have a plot'' and at the same time saying ''my game has something just like a plot, but not a plot, but is, but is not". A plotless game can be fun...to some people. So why not just own that?

In reply to my point that we should not conflate two different meanings for the term, "plot," your response immediately ignores the distinction.

I'll give the two definitions different names to help highlight my point.

Narrative Plot is an ongoing chronological series of events in a story (whether planned in advance or made up step by step through gameplay). In short, Narrative Plot is the story that actually happens.

Meta Plot is the sum of the DM prepared material designed to generate a specific set of chronological events in the gameplay. In short, Meta Plot is the story that the DM plans to happen.

My thesis: Railroading happens when the DM forces the Narrative Plot to fit their Meta Plot, rather than changing their Meta Plot to adapt to the Narrative Plot.

My supporting arguments:

Most games create a Narrative Plot, whether by design or happenstance.

When a Narrative Plot occurs by happenstance, this is almost always done by at least some improvisation. It could be entirely improvised, devoid of Meta Plot, and still turn out a perfectly legitimate Narrative Plot.

The relevancy of this point as it pertains to railroading: Railroading involves DM intervention that defends a Meta Plot rather than cultivating a Narrative Plot, when a Narrative Plot is often good and healthy in absence of a Meta Plot.

When Narrative Plot happens by design, it's usually (or hopefully) a case of a successful Meta Plot (in rare cases, it may be the designs of a player that dictate the Narrative Plot rather than the DM's intended Meta Plot, and this isn't inherently wrong either). Again, this would include as a subset group most forms of Railroading, where the DM employs force to ensure Narrative Plot does not stray outside the Meta Plot. Examples of successful Meta Plots leading Narrative Plot without Railroading often involve engaging the Players' and PCs' interest, targeting their motivations (they already want to be swept off into adventure) to entice them to voluntarily follow the Meta Plot's intended path. This isn't "good railroading." It's more like Plot Hooks/Nets and other less forceful engagement methods.

Now, on the subject of Railroading, the aforementioned action only takes place when the DM forces the Narrative Plot to fit the Meta Plot. This only occurs when the Narrative Plot would otherwise have diverged from the Meta Plot (had the divergence not been prohibited), so let's examine this triggering scenario.

The DM has set up an event based upon the Meta Plot. As the only actors not already seeking to build upon the Meta Plot, one or more players explore alternative options to build upon a prefered Narrative Plot. Their choices conflict with the next event in the Meta Plot, causing any continuation into the next event in the Meta Plot to create a paradox in the Narrative Plot.

The DM has a host of options to employ in this scenario. Note that all these examples assume a healthy table with no toxic players (that is a totally different scenario).
1. They can Railroad, forcing the Narrative Plot back into cohesion with the Meta Plot by whatever means.
Pros: maintains continuity, less wasteful of time spent preparing game material.
Cons: often frustrates players who feel they are being unjustly denied the most fundamental agency of gameplay.
Best practices: Railroading usually works best to jumpstart the story when the whole table is experiencing a creative block and isn't sure what to do next.
2. They can improvise, abandoning the Meta Plot and simply following the Narrative Plot without planning it ahead of time.
Pros: quicker than planning new material, often grants players the satisfaction of interacting with a "living" game.
Cons: it's often easier to make balance errors or overlook story loopholes when trying to create Narrative Plot and adjucate rules simultaneously.
Best Practices: use in small doses to keep the game moving when the Meta Plot goes out the window. Instead of completely improvising, lighten the load on yourself by scavenging critical pieces of the Meta Plot to appear in the improvised Narrative Plot as Quantum Ogre elements in the new turn of events.
3. They can use Meta Diplomacy: apologizing for their mistake and asking the other players not to look at the man behind the curtain.
Pros: honesty is the best policy. Being honest with your players helps maintain or improve trust from your players and keep the gaming spirit alive.
Cons: don't give up without a fight. It's never fun to ask everyone to stop what they're doing and change.
Best Practices: this is kind of a last resort. Choose first to improvise (see above) or call a time out (see below) before asking people to play differently.
4. They can call a time out, pausing or ending the session to go back and take more time to adjust or overhaul the Meta Plot to account for the new direction the Narrative Plot has taken.
Pros: the best of being honest and responsible, you're admitting to being outwitted by your players and taking up the responsibility of doing the extra work necessary to honor their success in gameplay, changing your Meta Plot to answer the conundrum posed by their solution to your challenge.
Cons: stops the gameplay to develop Meta Plot, potentially wasting available time to otherwise develop Narrative Plot.
Best Practices: never stop play if you can. Improvise a solution before stopping to adapt the Meta Plot. When you do call time out, keep it brief as possible. Grab generic monster statistics, roll random encounters.
It's part of what those things are for.

The Meta Plot should always be a DM tool for serving the Narrative Plot. In all things, the Narrative Plot takes precedence. Railroading is bad whenever it is used to turn this relationship on its head and force the Narrative to serve the Meta. The complaint is, correctly, that the DM is marginalizing the other players' voices and authority in the Narrative Plot.

Lorsa

2017-10-10, 08:50 AM

Tinkerer

2017-10-10, 08:53 AM

Wow. Great post. I can be quiet now and let you talk. :smallsmile:

Indeed, that's another quote which is worth saving (although I may alter some of the terms somewhat when I put it in my reference file).

zlefin

2017-10-10, 10:43 AM

I haven't had enough experience to say with much reliability, but i'll throw in my two cents.
I'd say there's a lot of viable choices, nad it depends on the group; it's best to be up-front with the group about how railroady people want things to be.
I don't think I've had anything that really ran long enough with a group for the issue to really come up though. basically I've just had a few PbP things, wherein the scope of the adventure is usually spelled out (often even more explicitly with it being an adventure path/module), in which case it's implicit that you're going to stick to what's in the path.

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-10, 10:59 AM

In reply to my point that we should not conflate two different meanings for the term, "plot," your response immediately ignores the distinction.

I'll give the two definitions different names to help highlight my point.

Narrative Plot is an ongoing chronological series of events in a story (whether planned in advance or made up step by step through gameplay). In short, Narrative Plot is the story that actually happens.

Meta Plot is the sum of the DM prepared material designed to generate a specific set of chronological events in the gameplay. In short, Meta Plot is the story that the DM plans to happen.

My thesis: Railroading happens when the DM forces the Narrative Plot to fit their Meta Plot, rather than changing their Meta Plot to adapt to the Narrative Plot.

...

The Meta Plot should always be a DM tool for serving the Narrative Plot. In all things, the Narrative Plot takes precedence. Railroading is bad whenever it is used to turn this relationship on its head and force the Narrative to serve the Meta. The complaint is, correctly, that the DM is marginalizing the other players' voices and authority in the Narrative Plot.

While our terminology has differed, so many of us have tried to make that same point, to lay out that core distinction... to no avail.

kyoryu

2017-10-10, 11:20 AM

Narrative Plot is an ongoing chronological series of events in a story (whether planned in advance or made up step by step through gameplay). In short, Narrative Plot is the story that actually happens.

Meta Plot is the sum of the DM prepared material designed to generate a specific set of chronological events in the gameplay. In short, Meta Plot is the story that the DM plans to happen.

My thesis: Railroading happens when the DM forces the Narrative Plot to fit their Meta Plot, rather than changing their Meta Plot to adapt to the Narrative Plot.

There's a third option, which is often talked about as "prepping situations, not plots." You are presuming that the way to prep a game is to come up with a sequence of encounters/scenes (the Metaplot).

As an example of prep I did, I set up a town where there was a faction in the nobility, between the family of the ruling family as well, conflict between the nobility and the rising merchants guilds, an active assassin's guild doing god knows what, and a member of the town watch that was looking to overthrow the nobility.

Into this I added a nasty critter that was a kinda vampiric thing that made its hosts basically superhuman.

The game started when the PCs discovered the first set of hosts. From there, I had a general idea of what might happen without the PCs involved just to get a handle on how things might go, and the various NPCs. But really what ended up happening is that the efforts of the PCs to investigate started informing the various factions of the existence of these superhumans (who were unaware of the downsides of the parasite), and them trying to use the superhumans for their own ends, and, in at least one case of running the scenario, actively recruiting one of the PCs.

At no point, outside of the initial scene, did I ever plot a sequence of events or encounters for the players. Therefore, there was no adjusting the meta plot to match the narrative plot. I presumed I would have to improvise the vast majority of scenes to begin with.

I've always thought there is something wrong with the Quantum Ogre example and especially referring to it as an example of railroading. After some thinking, I've come to realize that perhaps it is looking at the game at the wrong "scale" (in your definition), and also that it tries to classify the GM preparing 'any' encounter as railroading (which gets weird as the GM presenting situations shouldn't be railroading, should it? that's what DU is saying).

I don't think the QO example treats any encounter prep as railroading. It's only railroading if all choices lead, effectively, to the same destination.

To put it another way, it's the Magician's Choice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_(magic)

"Okay, pick high or low."
<person picks high>
"Okay, we'll keep the high cards."

"Okay, pick high or low."
<person picks low>
"Okay, we'll discard the low cards."

It's an illustration, not a literal scenario.

The way I view the game is like this:

GM: What do you do?
Player: We remain in the city.
GM: You are ambushed by a street gang.

GM: What do you do?
Player: We leave the city by foot, following the roads.
GM: There's an ogre ambush.

GM: What do you do?
Player: We leave the city by foot, using the forest trails.
GM: You encounter a troll cave.

GM: What do you do?
Player: We leave the city by hitching a ride with a large caravan.
GM: There's a mutiny where the hired mercenary guards are trying to kill and rob the merchant.

That's not railroading. Note that they get different results based on their choice.

Trying to make a scenario or example based on the GM "presenting" a simple binary choice (which is largely irrelevant as the roads are thought to be identical) and having the encounter be the same is... well... not really how most roleplaying games work is it? Normally, there are a large amount of choices the players can make that should have an impact. Whether or not the take the north or south road, given no other contexts, seems to have little impact on the probability of meeting an ogre.

Well, yeah, it's a simplified example to illustrate the core of the concept.

I guess the main difference between the north and south road is that one will lead to City X whereas the other to City Y. So if we think of the start as A and the ogre as B, the sequence can either go:

A+B+X or A+B+Y.

Again, simplified example. Which leads to interesting questions, like, which one is more railroady? A->B->X and A->C->X, or A->B->X vs A->B->Y. (I'd argue the first, personally).

And almost any reasonable game will have some "enforced" encounters at some point.

So, at some scale, the outcome IS different, even if they both lead through B (unlike your example where both B and C lead to D.

Agreed 100%.

Or, to put it another way, I think the railroading in the Quantum Ogre example actually occurs at the presentation of the two options. If the GM says "you can leave the city either by the north or south road", they have ALREADY restricted the player's agency. The GM should say "there are two roads leaving the city, the north one is surrounded by forest whereas the south one leads over the plains" and then wait for player input. The PCs can leave the city in many different ways; alone, on foot, on horse, with a caravan, following a road, going through the wilderness etc etc. I definitely agree that all of these ways should NOT lead to the same outcome, but as long as ogres are known to roam both roads; why couldn't one assault lonely travelers on either of them?

Simplified example. The point here is that the GM has decided "this is the next thing you will do", and regardless of the choice the player makes, they end up doing that thing. Thus the choice is illusory.

Maybe I am getting too lost in the example. I mean, I do agree that you should give your players choices, and that those choices should have an impact on the progression of the game and the story. That's just basic GMing, no?

For quite a number of years, no, it wasn't. Having "the story" prepped, and keeping people on it, was considered good GMing. I mean, even today, that's pretty much how Adventure Paths work.

Eh. If your solution to ANYTHING is "get better at manipulating", you have issues that goes far beyond bad GMing practice.

I agree. The point is that framing railroading as bad *if the players notice* creates an obvious "solution" of "get better at lying and manipulating people". And that's a bad solution. The solution is "don't tell people they have agency in your game if they don't," which is only the obvious answer if you frame the issue as "you've told people that they have choices, but actively work to remove those." In other words, illusionism (see below) is always bad, because it's built on manipulation. Participationism can be fine.

The obvious solution to me is to change the behavior that leads to the players feeling like spectators in the GM's story. As you said, it is ultimately impossible to get enough at manipulating, so why do you consider it to be an option anyway?

I wouldn't. My point is that framing railroading as bad if the players notice essentially promotes/enables the point of view that you're talking about. And as such, it's a really bad way to think about the problem.

Also, I think we should do well with differentiating a "railroad" from "railroading". Yes, a railroad is a prerequisite for railroading, but having one doesn't necessarily lead to railroading. You could, as you said, be honest and say "hey guys, I made a railroad, wanna follow it?" and get rid of all the horrible railroading. I've always viewed railroading, the verb, as what you do to make your players follow the railroad without their consent.

In Forge-speak (and I'm no Forge fan), a railroad is the linear path. How it's handled then is either "illusionism" (telling players they have choice, but in fact not giving them through various means), or "participationism" (everyone knowingly jumps on the choo-choo). I'm okay with the second, even if it's not my preferred play style. While I'm no huge fan of the origin, the terms exist and are sufficiently baggage-free I see no reason not to use them.

The means for illusionism that I can see are:

1) Offer no choice. "There's one door going forward, and the path behind you is caved in."
2) Quantum Ogre.
3) Stonewalling (which is often done as increasing resistance to actions not going to the one that you want.) "You need to get in the castle. There's a lot of guards, it'll be a fun fight! No, there's no secret passages. No, there's no bribing the guards. No, you can't sneak in, they have scry spells. No, the castle walls can't be climbed". This is usually done more subtly, at first, and is probably the most common technique. It's also (IMHO) the worst, as it leads to players play the "guess what the GM wants us to do" game, and interpreting the first resistance as a statement that something isn't "what the GM wants".

Which is why making a railroad is okay, but railroading is not (the way I see it anyway).

Well, yes. That's kinda my point.

When you talk about "Normal Classic game", it's not actually what the rest of us are playing. You are really talking about "The Classic Railroading game".

The irony being that the original games were actually far more open-ended than anything he's proposed. The real railroady stuff didn't start until DragonLance, and then was the dominant playstyle through the 90s.

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-10, 11:43 AM

In Forge-speak (and I'm no Forge fan), a railroad is the linear path. How it's handled then is either "illusionism" (telling players they have choice, but in fact not giving them through various means), or "participationism" (everyone knowingly jumps on the choo-choo). I'm okay with the second, even if it's not my preferred play style. While I'm no huge fan of the origin, the terms exist and are sufficiently baggage-free I see no reason not to use them.

The means for illusionism that I can see are:

1) Offer no choice. "There's one door going forward, and the path behind you is caved in."
2) Quantum Ogre.
3) Stonewalling (which is often done as increasing resistance to actions not going to the one that you want.) "You need to get in the castle. There's a lot of guards, it'll be a fun fight! No, there's no secret passages. No, there's no bribing the guards. No, you can't sneak in, they have scry spells. No, the castle walls can't be climbed". This is usually done more subtly, at first, and is probably the most common technique. It's also (IMHO) the worst, as it leads to players play the "guess what the GM wants us to do" game, and interpreting the first resistance as a statement that something isn't "what the GM wants".

Where it gets messy is that there are (a limited number) of legitimate occurrences of each of the three.

Sometimes the way you came really does get blocked behind you.
Sometimes the enemy really does have all three roads being watched.
Sometimes there really is only one way in.

Sadly, it's a common problem both in GMing and in fiction that the occasional legitimate occurrence or usage of such an event is used as a fig leaf for a gross overabundance thereof.

Also, this is where timing and intent come in to play, IMO. There is be a difference between the scenario design ahead of time including that the fortification has a certain list of defenses and sticking to those defenses with the GM sticking to that list, on one hand, and the GM tacking on retconned defenses directly in response to the player's plans as a means of deliberated and reactively thwarting those plans, on the other hand.

Segev

2017-10-10, 11:47 AM

Where it gets messy is that there are (a limited number) of legitimate occurrences of each of the three.

Sometimes the way you came really does get blocked behind you.
Sometimes the enemy really does have all three roads being watched.
Sometimes there really is only one way in.

Sadly, it's a common problem both in GMing and in fiction that the occasional legitimate occurrence or usage of such an event is used as a fig leaf for a gross overabundance thereof.

Also, this is where timing and intent come in to play, IMO. There is be a difference between the scenario design ahead of time including that the fortification has a certain list of defenses and sticking to those defenses with the GM sticking to that list, on one hand, and the GM tacking on retconned defenses directly in response to the player's plans as a means of deliberated and reactively thwarting those plans, on the other hand.

There are two ways to legitimately play the question of whether XYZ really "would have been" the case:

1) Preplanning. The GM really did plan this out that way.
2) Using some sort of game mechanic. No, the GM isn't as clever as Baron von Brillianschtein, but he has mechanics like K:Tactics and Intelligence checks to see if the Baron thought of a particular contingency.

There's also room for "GM facepalm, but no way a group would have missed that even if he did."

The tricky bit is making sure it's really in character for your NPC group, and not just you wanting to make them unstoppable except in That One Way. Usually, you can detect this by examining That One Way: is it also something they "should have" thought of shoring up, if they were able to think of those others?

kyoryu

2017-10-10, 11:51 AM

Where it gets messy is that there are (a limited number) of legitimate occurrences of each of the three.

Sometimes the way you came really does get blocked behind you.
Sometimes the enemy really does have all three roads being watched.
Sometimes there really is only one way in.

Sadly, it's a common problem both in GMing and in fiction that the occasional legitimate occurrence or usage of such an event is used as a fig leaf for a gross overabundance thereof.

Unfortunately. And it's also why people think they can get away with railroading without being detected. I mean, they did it once! But the pattern becomes more and more obvious over time, especially combined with other giveaways (frequent set piece encounters, especially with props or handouts).

Also, this is where timing and intent come in to play, IMO. There is be a difference between the scenario design ahead of time including that the fortification has a certain list of defenses and sticking to those defenses with the GM sticking to that list, on one hand, and the GM tacking on retconned defenses directly in response to the player's plans as a means of deliberated and reactively thwarting those plans, on the other hand.

Even in advance, it can vary. Are the defenses set up to force the players into the one thing that the GM is going to plan? That's still railroading (of the "only one option" variety).

Most "something will happen" scenarios I've done as a GM have been because of action by the "enemy", rather than funneling player choices down a particular path.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-10-10, 12:05 PM

It's also (IMHO) the worst, as it leads to players play the "guess what the GM wants us to do" game, and interpreting the first resistance as a statement that something isn't "what the GM wants".

This is absolutely infuriating, by the way. One of my biggest frustrations in dealing with players who've been conditioned by bad railroading GMs. The moment there's a reasonable obstacle in their way they interpret it as "Not what you want us to do" and drop it.

georgie_leech

2017-10-10, 12:14 PM

There are two ways to legitimately play the question of whether XYZ really "would have been" the case:

1) Preplanning. The GM really did plan this out that way.
2) Using some sort of game mechanic. No, the GM isn't as clever as Baron von Brillianschtein, but he has mechanics like K:Tactics and Intelligence checks to see if the Baron thought of a particular contingency.

There's also room for "GM facepalm, but no way a group would have missed that even if he did."

The tricky bit is making sure it's really in character for your NPC group, and not just you wanting to make them unstoppable except in That One Way. Usually, you can detect this by examining That One Way: is it also something they "should have" thought of shoring up, if they were able to think of those others?

As an aside, I may have to steal that villain name.

OldTrees1

2017-10-10, 12:22 PM

No?
A Tyrant DM can change things by themselves.
A Tyrant Player is forcing (most of the time) the DM to do things.

Player Agency describes the concentration, quality, and scale of the choices the DM grants to the PCs. The DM is the subject of the sentence that is doing the granting of those choices. Therefore Player Agency cannot be an example of Tyrant Player.

To think about it another way: If I (DM) hand you (PC) a red (x degree of Player Agency) ball (choice). The redness (x degree of Player Agency) of the ball (choice) is not your (PC's) fault is it? Therefore Player Agency (a descriptive measurement of something the DM does) cannot be an example of Tyrant Player.

I think any attempts to define railroading in a dictionary sense has problems, which I tried to explain in my first post in this thread.

At this point, my whole aim is to try and make DU understand what we mean with railroading, so I will use any method possible.

The way we learn new words as children is by being given various examples of things that are called the word until we finally "get it". Perhaps that is what we need to do with railroading as well; generate a large set of long-winded examples and hope that we can be understood.

Nevertheless, I DO think that one of the consequences of railroading is that players feel like spectators rather than participants, so the attempt isn't too bad is it? I mean, DU has misunderstood or rejected basically all other definitions...

You knew the situation. You knew good definitions for railroading that DU was not accepting. So to counter one of DU's misconceptions you started with an erroneous but related definition (talking about the shadow of a dog rather than taking on the dog itself) in a hope that it would incrementally help DU understand. It is a good way to teach difficult concepts (Evolution is taught that way). However I did not expect it to help DU understand, and DU did not increment towards a better definition.

Quertus

2017-10-10, 12:54 PM

I've always thought there is something wrong with the Quantum Ogre example and especially referring to it as an example of railroading. After some thinking, I've come to realize that perhaps it is looking at the game at the wrong "scale" (in your definition), and also that it tries to classify the GM preparing 'any' encounter as railroading (which gets weird as the GM presenting situations shouldn't be railroading, should it? that's what DU is saying).

The way I view the game is like this:

GM: What do you do?
Player: We remain in the city.
GM: You are ambushed by a street gang.

GM: What do you do?
Player: We leave the city by foot, following the roads.
GM: There's an ogre ambush.

GM: What do you do?
Player: We leave the city by foot, using the forest trails.
GM: You encounter a troll cave.

GM: What do you do?
Player: We leave the city by hitching a ride with a large caravan.
GM: There's a mutiny where the hired mercenary guards are trying to kill and rob the merchant.

Trying to make a scenario or example based on the GM "presenting" a simple binary choice (which is largely irrelevant as the roads are thought to be identical) and having the encounter be the same is... well... not really how most roleplaying games work is it? Normally, there are a large amount of choices the players can make that should have an impact. Whether or not the take the north or south road, given no other contexts, seems to have little impact on the probability of meeting an ogre.

I guess the main difference between the north and south road is that one will lead to City X whereas the other to City Y. So if we think of the start as A and the ogre as B, the sequence can either go:

A+B+X or A+B+Y.

So, at some scale, the outcome IS different, even if they both lead through B (unlike your example where both B and C lead to D.

Or, what happens if the GM mixes it up a bit more and goes A+B+X or A+Y+B and thus places the ogre after city Y instead of before as for city X, in case they take the south road?

Looking at the small scale, the situations are now: A+B or A+Y, which are clearly different, and after that they become B+X or Y+B which are ALSO different.

For longer chains it gets even more difficult to think of the quantum ogre as railroading:

A+B+X+C+D+E or A+Y+F+G+H+B.

Or, to put it another way, I think the railroading in the Quantum Ogre example actually occurs at the presentation of the two options. If the GM says "you can leave the city either by the north or south road", they have ALREADY restricted the player's agency. The GM should say "there are two roads leaving the city, the north one is surrounded by forest whereas the south one leads over the plains" and then wait for player input. The PCs can leave the city in many different ways; alone, on foot, on horse, with a caravan, following a road, going through the wilderness etc etc. I definitely agree that all of these ways should NOT lead to the same outcome, but as long as ogres are known to roam both roads; why couldn't one assault lonely travelers on either of them?

The Quantum Ogre Random Encounter

I use random encounters. Sometimes, I use the same encounter table for different areas. I can see the following scenario:

Players:: we take the north road.
Me: (roll) ok, two hours outside town, you see...
Players: oops, we meant the south road.
Me: the guard whose life you saved last session is manning the guard post. He waves you through. Two hours outside town, you see...

And it's the exact same ogre bandit ambush that I already rolled for.

It's something I'd do. It's not something I object to. But is it railroading?

My answer is, it depends.

If it is logical for the ogres to be there, then it's fine. However, if a tasty caravan took the south road shortly ahead of the party, then it is far more likely that the ogres hit that caravan than the party. So, instead of the ogre bandits, the scene should adapt, and change to signs of a recent battle. If the caravan won, the party might see dead ogres, or be able to track which way the ogres ran off, if they care to do so. On the other hand, if the ogres won, there might be some abandoned carts, a few busted crates, and, if the ogres are particularly dumb, a few (possibly wounded) ogres looking to repeat their success.

So, for me, railroading hinges on actions not having their logical consequences.

Segev

2017-10-10, 12:58 PM

As an aside, I may have to steal that villain name.

Feel free! Glad you like it. May he vex your PCs and make their players snicker.

kyoryu

2017-10-10, 01:14 PM

It's something I'd do. It's not something I object to. But is it railroading?

Not in my opinion. First, you have no railroad you’re trying to enforce. It’s a random encounter.

Secondly, there is no indication that the game will not diverge in the future based on other player actions.

Pleh

2017-10-10, 03:00 PM

There's a third option, which is often talked about as "prepping situations, not plots." You are presuming that the way to prep a game is to come up with a sequence of encounters/scenes (the Metaplot).

Snip

I was indeed focusing on drawing a distinction between different ideas that the word, "plot" was being used for in the discussion, not attempting to construct a comprehensive guide to DMing techniques.

I am glad to hear some people liked my words.

georgie_leech

2017-10-10, 03:08 PM

Not in my opinion. First, you have no railroad you’re trying to enforce. It’s a random encounter.

Secondly, there is no indication that the game will not diverge in the future based on other player actions.

Mm. I think the idea is that it's a specific, likely plot-critical Ogre, not just a random encounter. Like, it's Quamtum Ogring when in Fable, the key to the prison is always in the second book you look through.

Friv

2017-10-10, 03:37 PM

I use random encounters. Sometimes, I use the same encounter table for different areas. I can see the following scenario:

Players:: we take the north road.
Me: (roll) ok, two hours outside town, you see...
Players: oops, we meant the south road.
Me: the guard whose life you saved last session is manning the guard post. He waves you through. Two hours outside town, you see...

And it's the exact same ogre bandit ambush that I already rolled for.

It's something I'd do. It's not something I object to. But is it railroading?

My answer is, it depends.

Yeah, it depends.

For me, the big question is, "can the players' actions change how the ogre ambush goes down"? Not so much "taking north or south road", but can they, with good scouting, spot an ogre ahead? Can they find a way to evade them? If they deliberately send a decoy party down the road ahead of them, do the ogres miraculously fail to engage that party so that they can jump out at the PCs instead? Can the PCs stealth around the ogres, or approach them and bribe them?

Or does every approach inevitably end with, "Well, the ogres ambush you and now there is a fight"?

jayem

2017-10-10, 04:29 PM

Mm. I think the idea is that it's a specific, likely plot-critical Ogre, not just a random encounter. Like, it's Quantum Ogring when in Fable, the key to the prison is always in the second book you look through.

I think another key is what happens to the road not travelled. In theory there isn't any way for the player to know. To actually see it in theory, you not only need to run both choices, but also to see the non-existent state. So you could confirm it if you had an undo button at a point random NPC go in opposite directions.

You go North and meet Ogre George and they have a perfectly clear journey on the Southern path.
(undo)
You go South and meet Ogre George and they have a perfectly clear journey on the Northern path,

Would be a clear case of a QO encounter, and might be getting railroady. But the explicit detection is impossible. In practice the DM will still be doing the deed. And the players WILL absorb it, and the DM will accidentally leak the information for it to get to the players subconscious.

While
You go North and meet Ogre George (who has an interesting punning catch phrase) and they meet Ogre Fred (who you didn't characterise).
(undo)
You go South and meet Ogre George (who has an interesting punning catch phrase) and they meet Ogre Fred (who you didn't characterise).
is much less of a QO encounter.

Darth Ultron
I don't get your example...

You alleged that the outcomes were.
Keep it Simple. Cartoon-like play. Example: HappyTown is full of good people, and one bad guy...and something bad happens! Guess who did it?
Quantum Ogre. Does not matter at all what the players do, the DM just puts stuff right in front of them.
OOC. The DM tells the players everything and asks them to do things. ''Hey players I made a fun encounter behind door two, so pick that door!''
Player By In. Players want play the game and play along willingly.
Senseless Game. The game makes no sense, like a cartoon or anime or B type movie.
You simply have a dull, boring game where nothing much happens.
That is to say given any situation where a GM accidentally or deliberately gives a choice like

GM: "To the east is a old damaged boat, which you could use to go back to the carribean sea famous for it's pirates to the west is the hostile jungle where the native indian tribes* live.

And expects them to go west, but instead they chose to go east. Either has to use one of the back to the plan options or have a Senseless or Boring game. That is for all GM's, (me, you, Segev, Quertus, Lorsa, the hypothetical perfect GM, a 4 year old in a nursery) if we didn't force things back to the plan we'd all end up stuck as shown unable to think of anything that was sensible and interesting.
I can believe you think that I might be so stupid, unimaginative, dull, you've never met me.
I'll struggle to believe that you are, but if you repeatedly tell me so, I might be forced to accept it.
But nobody...?

Darth Ultron

2017-10-10, 05:03 PM

When you talk about "Normal Classic game", it's not actually what the rest of us are playing. You are really talking about "The Classic Railroading game".

Well, no. I'm talking about the Normal Classic Game, basically the D&D way, though tons of other games have copied the way. The rules for such games, like D&D, are very clear about things like what a DM and Player both do. And a plot is just doing something pre-planned. Really, this is like 'most' RPG games.

And yes, there are tons of games specifically made to be ''anti the D&D way'', but I'm not talking about them.

So, I figured out my games are more like your #2; except that lots of amazing exciting things happen, and the players are usually extremely satisfied.

Well, I'd ask how you do it, but I'd guess you have a plot as that is the only way to do it. And ''players'' can be ''satisfied'' with anything they like. So if your players like X, and you do X, they will be happy.

A big problem is that you think that "plot" has to be set in stone before the game. A plot as a "sequence of events in a story" does not equate it being predetermined by the DM (or anyone else). First off, the "story" you want to tell is the one of the PCs, so whatever else happens in the world is actually just background noise and not part of the plot. The plot is the scenes the player's encounter. The game as played at the table. THAT is the plot. And it can sure as hell be improvised and STILL provide a good, coherent story. I kid you not! I know it may seem shocking but it's the truth!

Sure, you can scroll up to where I never said (or typed) that. Though a plot does have to be made before it can be used...that is kind of basic.

I know it can be fun, for some people, to just randomly improv a big pile of random stuff and have fun....I don't disagree with that at all.

And I get your a Second Life type: you just want to ''live another life'' in the game. And again, that is great...for people like you. A normal classic game has Pc's fighting a dragon...yours is more like ''Ok, to eat your soup your character must roll a DC 10 to get the spoon in his mouth. *Roll 7* Oh, no your character misses their mouth and spills the soup!"

Narrative Plot is an ongoing chronological series of events in a story (whether planned in advance or made up step by step through gameplay). In short, Narrative Plot is the story that actually happens.

Meta Plot is the sum of the DM prepared material designed to generate a specific set of chronological events in the gameplay. In short, Meta Plot is the story that the DM plans to happen.

The big problem with your example is the Good vs Bad, and really the overwheling hate.

You have the DM plot: that is always badwrongfun and really the DM absolutely must drop ''their'' plot immediately and should have never even thought of having one.

Then you ave the Player plot: Oh, it is a wondrous thing of beauty and perfection, and just thinking about it make you weep tears of joy and wonder. Everyone, even that mean Dm person should just follow the Player Plot, it is Goodrightfun.

And the ''DM hate'' is very clear. So I'd ask ''why is your hate so focused on the ''wrong DM plot?"

Like lets assume there is a blank DM..they have nothing and want nothing and nothing, nothing, nothing. Then the wonderful players come along and say ''lets do this plot''. So the DM makes that plot for the player, so it is the players plot 100%. So now there is a Meta Player plot and the ''narrative'' Player plot...so no DM plot at all. So what happens then?

While our terminology has differed, so many of us have tried to make that same point, to lay out that core distinction... to no avail.

It is just so wrong it is hard to know were to start, so much DM hate to sift through.

QUOTE=kyoryu;22464064]At no point, outside of the initial scene, did I ever plot a sequence of events or encounters for the players. Therefore, there was no adjusting the meta plot to match the narrative plot. I presumed I would have to improvise the vast majority of scenes to begin with.[/QUOTE]

Ok, seriously, yet again....why is what is described above not a plot? It sure seems like one?

I get the DM was all laid back and casual and did not think up a plot ''offically before the game and carve it in stone'' .

And I get the Casual DM just sat back and was like ''ok players this is your awesome Second Life, just wander around my awesome novel for a while and forget your real lives.''

And all of that is a great, very long and drawn out ''game zero''. Ok, all great.

And then, the players....set off the plot.

I get the DM was not skillful or willing enough to think up of the plot before the game. But at some point as the characters were investigating things, the DM though of the plot. So why is this not a plot again?

Unfortunately. And it's also why people think they can get away with railroading without being detected. I mean, they did it once! But the pattern becomes more and more obvious over time, especially combined with other giveaways (frequent set piece encounters, especially with props or handouts).

Odd, as I have all ways found the Casual DM's improv encounters a dead give away as people can't just make ''amazing stuff'' in one second, so they just use whatever they can half remember that they used before.

This is absolutely infuriating, by the way. One of my biggest frustrations in dealing with players who've been conditioned by bad railroading GMs. The moment there's a reasonable obstacle in their way they interpret it as "Not what you want us to do" and drop it.

Wow. I do so hate this myself too. So many players conditioned by bad DMs to just ''drop stuff'' (like them causal lazy DMs that don't prepare stuff before a game).

And expects them to go west, but instead they chose to go east. Either has to use one of the back to the plan options or have a Senseless or Boring game.

Ok, so why is the Pirates of the Caribbean way bad though? The choice of hostile pirates or hostile native folks, does not seem so different.

And yes, I get your a ''have a bunch of stuff happen in the game'', then later connect them all and call it a ''Story'' types.

jayem

2017-10-10, 05:18 PM

Ok, so why is the Pirates of the Caribbean way bad though? The choice of hostile pirates or hostile native folks, does not seem so different.

And yes, I get your a ''have a bunch of stuff happen in the game'', then later connect them all and call it a ''Story'' types.
I don't think it is bad, either to me are rational choices, either could work. Either could be interesting, either can be worked out even the way that (for this example I'm assuming) was not the (short term) Plot. But apparently if I let them make that choice I have to be Boring or Random, so I must be wrong.

I'd actually expect both to be quite different in terms of atmosphere, etc... The sea has open sightlines, the jungle is close,. Less snakebites, more rigging incidents. Natives and Pirates probably have different goals. &c, &c, &c...

Also on the plots, the player plot would be a third plot. So on my example:
The Meta (DM) plot might be "The players go through the jungle, rescue the indian princess, ... and reach New York ...".
A Player plot (there are multiple players) might be "We get on the boat, successfully fight any pirates as we sail up to New York, where we'll be proclaimed Gods"

The Narrative plot in hindsight might be "The players get on a boat, lose a fight against pirates and are taken prisoner...and ... [the DM and player plot will adjust to catch up with the consequences of the interplay of dice, player and DM]

ImNotTrevor

2017-10-10, 06:07 PM

Well, no. I'm talking about the Normal Classic Game, basically the D&D way, though tons of other games have copied the way. The rules for such games, like D&D, are very clear about things like what a DM and Player both do. And a plot is just doing something pre-planned. Really, this is like 'most' RPG games.

And yes, there are tons of games specifically made to be ''anti the D&D way'', but I'm not talking about them.

Yes. There are many of those games.

One of them is D&D 1e, as well as the Basic and Advanced sets. (So we can call that two of them?)

There were no plots back then. Just maps with caves and monsters in those caves with loot to steal. The players picked a dungeon and looted it. Then they did the same thing the next week. There was no BBEG. Just a parade of monsters living in holes with gold.

This point is literally arguing that the CHANGE to how D&D operates is how it always was. This is factually untrue.

Segev

2017-10-10, 07:17 PM

In all honesty, if somebody wants to use a Quantum Ogre, it's not necessarily a bad thing. It is a railroad, but as long as the party didn't deliberately set out to take actions to avoid it, it's not one that inherently invalidates the players' informed agency. (Frankly, uninformed agency is illusory, anyway.)

It's a problem if the party researched and learned that the ogre was north of town, so went south to avoid him...and encountered him anyway. It's also a problem if the party instead encounters a troll because they bought a knife of ogre slaying +9. It's not a problem if the party chose south instead of north because they thought the fire caves to the south sounded more nifty than the ice palace to the north.

It also becomes problematic if it's transparently railroading, but that's a separate issue. i.e., "Hey, this ogre was essential to the ongoing plot. What if we'd missed him by going elsewhere?" can cause a realization that he was destined to be in their path no matter where they went, which does break the illusion of a simulated world a bit. But still, it probably isn't a huge problem because it doesn't really render their choices meaningless; they had no information on the ogre.

It's not really agency to choose between the N, S, E, and W doors of a room when you have literally no information on them.

kyoryu

2017-10-10, 09:00 PM

It's not really agency to choose between the N, S, E, and W doors of a room when you have literally no information on them.

Clearly not. Again, simplified example for the purpose of illustration.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-10, 10:04 PM

I don't think it is bad, either to me are rational choices, either could work. Either could be interesting, either can be worked out even the way that (for this example I'm assuming) was not the (short term) Plot. But apparently if I let them make that choice I have to be Boring or Random, so I must be wrong.

Well, our example might be better if it had a plot. Like:

The players have been hired by the king to save the kidnapped princess from the pirates. The pirates want a huge ransom in gold and have set a deadline that is just three days away.

So now you'd have ''your characters walk along the beach and find a boat. Do you want to use it to sail back towards the pirates or just aimlessly wander inland towards the hostile folk?"

Though your example should be a bit obvious and would not need any railroading anyway.

Yes. There are many of those games.

One of them is D&D 1e, as well as the Basic and Advanced sets. (So we can call that two of them?)

There were no plots back then. Just maps with caves and monsters in those caves with loot to steal. The players picked a dungeon and looted it. Then they did the same thing the next week. There was no BBEG. Just a parade of monsters living in holes with gold.

This point is literally arguing that the CHANGE to how D&D operates is how it always was. This is factually untrue.

I understand that you don't like D&D, and that is fine, but do you really think that is true? Or is it you just can't see through your hate covered glasses?

Lets pick a 1E adventure: Tomb of the Lizard King is a three-part adventure involving a wilderness trek, a battle against brigands, and a foray into the tomb of the Lizard King.[1] Brigands have disrupted the southern trade routes, and the merchants are demanding that the Count of Eor put an end to the attacks. The Count put out the call for brave adventurers to put a stop to the raids and discover the power behind the attacks.

Yup, looks like a plot there and not just ''just a parade of monsters living in holes with gold." And it even has a BBEG, years before the video gamers made up that term.

Pleh

2017-10-10, 10:24 PM

The big problem with your example is the Good vs Bad, and really the overwheling hate.

You have the DM plot: that is always badwrongfun and really the DM absolutely must drop ''their'' plot immediately and should have never even thought of having one.

Then you ave the Player plot: Oh, it is a wondrous thing of beauty and perfection, and just thinking about it make you weep tears of joy and wonder. Everyone, even that mean Dm person should just follow the Player Plot, it is Goodrightfun.

And the ''DM hate'' is very clear. So I'd ask ''why is your hate so focused on the ''wrong DM plot?"

Like lets assume there is a blank DM..they have nothing and want nothing and nothing, nothing, nothing. Then the wonderful players come along and say ''lets do this plot''. So the DM makes that plot for the player, so it is the players plot 100%. So now there is a Meta Player plot and the ''narrative'' Player plot...so no DM plot at all. So what happens then?

You are (unsurprisingly) reading things into my words that were never there except in your mind.

Everything I wrote came from my experience as a DM, not from my experience as a player. Of course DM's should have plans and plots, that is responsible DM preparation. But these plans serve a higher purpose: the fun of the game. The plans, while valuable, are expendable in comparison to the need to entertain the group.

And yes, I think it's a DM's job to put their players' fun ahead of their own. Even better when the DM can celebrate the players' successes with them, but if it's ever one or the other, the DM should be the one to bite the bullet.

But nowhere did I say the definitions I made were absolute. I was making general statements, which I still stand by, since you argued against a position I was never maintaining. I neither hate DMs (I love DMing and appreciate my friends when they do it), nor were my statements intended to be absolute nor comprehensive.

Quite the opposite: I even said Railroading is fine when the table is drawing an inspirational blank and needs to break the ice.

My ultimate point was more that the role and purpose of Meta Plots (DM plans) are to serve the Narrative Plots (the resulting gameplay which the table experiences. As such, Meta Plots are only as valuable as the Narrative Plots have any actual need for them.

But the only reason I said anything at all was the danger I observed in confusing a DM's plans with the resulting events in the game, as if they were one and the same and any game where the DM's plans failed were somehow "plotless." The counter argument is that "player plots do exist and additionally are frequently superior to DM plots."

ImNotTrevor

2017-10-10, 10:38 PM

I understand that you don't like D&D, and that is fine, but do you really think that is true? Or is it you just can't see through your hate covered glasses?

Lets pick a 1E adventure: Tomb of the Lizard King is a three-part adventure involving a wilderness trek, a battle against brigands, and a foray into the tomb of the Lizard King.[1] Brigands have disrupted the southern trade routes, and the merchants are demanding that the Count of Eor put an end to the attacks. The Count put out the call for brave adventurers to put a stop to the raids and discover the power behind the attacks.

Yup, looks like a plot there and not just ''just a parade of monsters living in holes with gold." And it even has a BBEG, years before the video gamers made up that term.

Yes. Individual adventure paths existed. This was not, however, the popular play method until after Dragonlance.

Additionally, the module you picked is not a 1e adventure. It's an AD&D adventure published in 1984, the same year as Dragonlance and nearly a decade after the advent of D&D, so you've actually helped prove my point. Thanks!

kyoryu

2017-10-10, 11:24 PM

People that played with Gygax reported that the play structure was:

Everyone gets together, figures out what characters they're playing. They go into the dungeon (of Castle Greyhawk). At some point, Gary says "time to get wrapping up" and they then go to the surface.

No "plot" or railroading. Railroading is pretty much anathema to the old school ethos. The whole point is to give players choices and let them deal with the consequences.

Mordaedil

2017-10-11, 01:38 AM

I find it utterly ridiculous to entertain the notion that Darth Ultron can talk to his players given the difficulty we have communicating with him in forum posts, explaining over and over what something is, and him just not understanding or deliberately misreading what is written in plain english over and over. It is unreasonable to expect someone to talk to him and have it actually work to change things. I think this is why people run away screaming from his boards, not because they aren't getting their way, but because the denseness they have to penetrate to communicate is nearly inhumanly stubborn.

To wit, DU, in your campaign, what happens if the players roll a natural 20 on a hit to attack one of your recurring villains that is attempting to flee and roll enough damage to kill him, even though you still had plans written for that particular villain? Do you go with the flow of the players, do you let them have that kill that ruins all of your prepared work or do you make sure he has just enough hit points to still get away, denying them the victory just so the story can go on?

In your campaign, if the players attain a macguffin that is necessary to undo the evil plot, but the players are too dense to figure out what it is and destroys it ahead of time. How do you handle that? Would you even let it come down to such a simple thing in the first place?

Lorsa

2017-10-11, 04:28 AM

There's a third option, which is often talked about as "prepping situations, not plots." You are presuming that the way to prep a game is to come up with a sequence of encounters/scenes (the Metaplot).

As an example of prep I did, I set up a town where there was a faction in the nobility, between the family of the ruling family as well, conflict between the nobility and the rising merchants guilds, an active assassin's guild doing god knows what, and a member of the town watch that was looking to overthrow the nobility.

Into this I added a nasty critter that was a kinda vampiric thing that made its hosts basically superhuman.

The game started when the PCs discovered the first set of hosts. From there, I had a general idea of what might happen without the PCs involved just to get a handle on how things might go, and the various NPCs. But really what ended up happening is that the efforts of the PCs to investigate started informing the various factions of the existence of these superhumans (who were unaware of the downsides of the parasite), and them trying to use the superhumans for their own ends, and, in at least one case of running the scenario, actively recruiting one of the PCs.

At no point, outside of the initial scene, did I ever plot a sequence of events or encounters for the players. Therefore, there was no adjusting the meta plot to match the narrative plot. I presumed I would have to improvise the vast majority of scenes to begin with.

This is pretty much what I try to do as much as possible as well. It's much more fun when you as a GM have no idea exactly what's going to happen once the game starts. I've found that the amount of direction players need varies a lot. Some need more pointers from me on where they can go and what to do, whereas others manage just fine with almost no direction at all.

I don't think the QO example treats any encounter prep as railroading. It's only railroading if all choices lead, effectively, to the same destination.

To put it another way, it's the Magician's Choice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_(magic)

"Okay, pick high or low."
<person picks high>
"Okay, we'll keep the high cards."

"Okay, pick high or low."
<person picks low>
"Okay, we'll discard the low cards."

It's an illustration, not a literal scenario.

Yes, I know it's an illustration. My problem I guess is that I lack context. I've always seen the ogre as some sort of random encounter which is just there to spice up the players' travel, not a plot-dependent encounter. I mean, why would you ever construct a scenario which can only progress if the players choose the north instead of the south road? That's the worst kind of adventure design I've ever heard of.

But anyway, we are basically in agreement with what is railroading and the ways to avoid them, so our discussion is mostly academic anyway.

That's not railroading. Note that they get different results based on their choice.

Yes. I think the point was more "these are the actual choices players have in an RPG". Choices can never be limited to "do you take the north or south road?". That's simplifying things too much. They have choices on how to travel, if to go along the roads at all, if to stay in the city, if they leave at day or night etc etc. All these choices could (should?) have an affect on the game.

Well, yeah, it's a simplified example to illustrate the core of the concept.

I'm a physicist, so god knows I like simplified examples. Unfortunately, I think railroading is a complex issue that is best seen in a larger context. A lot of important information might get lost if the example gets overly simplified.

Again, simplified example. Which leads to interesting questions, like, which one is more railroady? A->B->X and A->C->X, or A->B->X vs A->B->Y. (I'd argue the first, personally).

And almost any reasonable game will have some "enforced" encounters at some point.

I agree on both accounts. Also, it could be interesting to evaluate some other examples for "which scenario is more railroady?". Maybe a conversation for another time.

For quite a number of years, no, it wasn't. Having "the story" prepped, and keeping people on it, was considered good GMing. I mean, even today, that's pretty much how Adventure Paths work.

I guess that's why I've never liked Adventure Paths. I looked through one just recently and thought "there is no way I can GM this without railroading my players". You can have equally great stories without having it prepped, so I don't see how it can be considered good GMing.

I agree. The point is that framing railroading as bad *if the players notice* creates an obvious "solution" of "get better at lying and manipulating people". And that's a bad solution. The solution is "don't tell people they have agency in your game if they don't," which is only the obvious answer if you frame the issue as "you've told people that they have choices, but actively work to remove those." In other words, illusionism (see below) is always bad, because it's built on manipulation. Participationism can be fine.

I wouldn't. My point is that framing railroading as bad if the players notice essentially promotes/enables the point of view that you're talking about. And as such, it's a really bad way to think about the problem.

I understand what you mean. However, I think railroading IS only bad because of the negative impact it has on the feelings/engagement of the players. I guess it's one of those tricky things where something is bad because of the effect but if you can still do the thing without the effect then maybe some people think it's okay?

The issue, obviously, is that the absolutely no one can get away with manipulating their players forever. They WILL notice, and when they do they'll be upset for TWO things, both the railroading AND the manipulation.

If some people think the solution is "get better at manipulation", they suffer from both "bad person personality disorder (not a clinical term)" and hubris.

In Forge-speak (and I'm no Forge fan), a railroad is the linear path. How it's handled then is either "illusionism" (telling players they have choice, but in fact not giving them through various means), or "participationism" (everyone knowingly jumps on the choo-choo). I'm okay with the second, even if it's not my preferred play style. While I'm no huge fan of the origin, the terms exist and are sufficiently baggage-free I see no reason not to use them.

I'm not a Forge-fan either, but in this particular case I think the terminology works quite well. Also, I don't prefer participationism either; but I have no objections with people that do.

You knew the situation. You knew good definitions for railroading that DU was not accepting. So to counter one of DU's misconceptions you started with an erroneous but related definition (talking about the shadow of a dog rather than taking on the dog itself) in a hope that it would incrementally help DU understand. It is a good way to teach difficult concepts (Evolution is taught that way). However I did not expect it to help DU understand, and DU did not increment towards a better definition.

Well, everything is worth trying, at this point.

The Quantum Ogre Random Encounter

I use random encounters. Sometimes, I use the same encounter table for different areas. I can see the following scenario:

Players:: we take the north road.
Me: (roll) ok, two hours outside town, you see...
Players: oops, we meant the south road.
Me: the guard whose life you saved last session is manning the guard post. He waves you through. Two hours outside town, you see...

And it's the exact same ogre bandit ambush that I already rolled for.

It's something I'd do. It's not something I object to. But is it railroading?

My answer is, it depends.

If it is logical for the ogres to be there, then it's fine. However, if a tasty caravan took the south road shortly ahead of the party, then it is far more likely that the ogres hit that caravan than the party. So, instead of the ogre bandits, the scene should adapt, and change to signs of a recent battle. If the caravan won, the party might see dead ogres, or be able to track which way the ogres ran off, if they care to do so. On the other hand, if the ogres won, there might be some abandoned carts, a few busted crates, and, if the ogres are particularly dumb, a few (possibly wounded) ogres looking to repeat their success.

So, for me, railroading hinges on actions not having their logical consequences.

Yes, this is pretty much how I think about the Quantum Ogre example as well.

Not in my opinion. First, you have no railroad you’re trying to enforce. It’s a random encounter.

Secondly, there is no indication that the game will not diverge in the future based on other player actions.

Mm. I think the idea is that it's a specific, likely plot-critical Ogre, not just a random encounter. Like, it's Quamtum Ogring when in Fable, the key to the prison is always in the second book you look through.

This is why I think all railroading is very contextual, and difficult to observe from just one small simplified example. Outside of examples of stonewalling that kyoryu spoke of before, you almost have to look at the game as a whole to properly judge if it's railroading or not.

Well, no. I'm talking about the Normal Classic Game, basically the D&D way, though tons of other games have copied the way. The rules for such games, like D&D, are very clear about things like what a DM and Player both do. And a plot is just doing something pre-planned. Really, this is like 'most' RPG games.

And yes, there are tons of games specifically made to be ''anti the D&D way'', but I'm not talking about them.

Interestingly enough, when you described the "Normal Classic Game" in the post I quoted, it sounds a lot like a railroading game. That is not how I play D&D for example, even though I follow the guidelines on what the DM and player can do.

Another way to phrase it would be "D&D the Adventure Path game".

And again, a plot is not "just doing something pre-planned". Your idea of plot seems, at first, to be good, but at second glance it is a mix of many things which are not identical.

Well, I'd ask how you do it, but I'd guess you have a plot as that is the only way to do it. And ''players'' can be ''satisfied'' with anything they like. So if your players like X, and you do X, they will be happy.

You would ask how I do it, but you've already concluded that there is only one way to do it? That's like a thief saying "I would ask you how you could have people give you apples, but the only way to do it is to steal them so why bother", failing to understand that if you ask nicely, people might be generous.

As has been shown in this thread on multiple occasions, it really means of what you think of when you hear the word "plot". Your definition seem to change with every post, so it's a bit confusing.

Sure, you can scroll up to where I never said (or typed) that. Though a plot does have to be made before it can be used...that is kind of basic.

It was inferred based on a combination of your statements. If you want, we can ask how many other people agree that my inferment (is that a word?) was correct, and compared it to how many think that your inferment of my position was correct. In fact, let's do it.

How many people find that what I inferred from DU's post was mostly correct (you can scroll up see what he objects with), and how many think that the following is a correctly inferred from my posts?

And I get your a Second Life type: you just want to ''live another life'' in the game. And again, that is great...for people like you. A normal classic game has Pc's fighting a dragon...yours is more like ''Ok, to eat your soup your character must roll a DC 10 to get the spoon in his mouth. *Roll 7* Oh, no your character misses their mouth and spills the soup!".

Yes, that's is clearly how my games go. I have never had PCs fighting a dragon in D&D, nor have they been chosen as champions of the gods, unraveled plots to take over a kingdom or prevented the world from being invaded by demons. Your astute divining of my games is astonishing.

No, my players would never ask me to run D&D when they're looking for epic high-fantasy campaigns. That would just be stupid and interfere with their soup eating.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-11, 07:31 AM

And yes, I think it's a DM's job to put their players' fun ahead of their own. Even better when the DM can celebrate the players' successes with them, but if it's ever one or the other, the DM should be the one to bite the bullet.

This is a big admission. And I think it is very wrong. Why, exactly, should the DM put the players fun ahead of their own? Why is the players fun so important, but the DM's fun does not matter at all?

I, on the other hand, think everyone's fun is important and no ones fun is more important then anyone else's.

Yes. Individual adventure paths existed. This was not, however, the popular play method until after Dragonlance.

Additionally, the module you picked is not a 1e adventure. It's an AD&D adventure published in 1984, the same year as Dragonlance and nearly a decade after the advent of D&D, so you've actually helped prove my point. Thanks!

Well, maybe is was not popular play in your small social circle, but it is a good thing you don't represent the world or anything.

I'm not sure you have your time line right, but what you want an adventure that was only published in like 1975? I'm not sure if you know this bit, but for a long time DM's just made up their own adventures. It's one way to tell an Old School DM: They make up their own stuff.

People that played with Gygax reported that the play structure was:

Everyone gets together, figures out what characters they're playing. They go into the dungeon (of Castle Greyhawk). At some point, Gary says "time to get wrapping up" and they then go to the surface.

No "plot" or railroading. Railroading is pretty much anathema to the old school ethos. The whole point is to give players choices and let them deal with the consequences.

This is true, but also note this is just one DM's way of doing things. And unlike the modern day D&D folks, he did not inject his own ''house rules'' into the ''official game''. Gygax was all ways very clear on ''it's your game do what you want '' and ''the rules we publish are just suggestions''.

To wit, DU, in your campaign, what happens if the players roll a natural 20 on a hit to attack one of your recurring villains that is attempting to flee and roll enough damage to kill him, even though you still had plans written for that particular villain? Do you go with the flow of the players, do you let them have that kill that ruins all of your prepared work or do you make sure he has just enough hit points to still get away, denying them the victory just so the story can go on?

I don't do such nitpicking Railroading. If a villain dies, he dies. Though most games like D&D, do allow for lots of ways to bring a villain back, like as an undead for example. In general, if an NPC is ''so'' important, I'd have that NPC avoid combat (aka, the Evil Emperor has a Darth Vader enforcer that can be 'sacrificed', if needed). Also, most games like D&D, allow for trickery like illusions and polymorphs, so that when the PCs ''kill a villain'', it might not be the ''real'' villain. Does every villain in the world do such things? No, but most do. Villains, like any character, will use what they have access to: A 12th level evil wizard has the spell teleport for a quick get away, just like the PCs do; and it is not too much of a shocking surprise to find the same 12th level wizard Magic Jars into another body.

And this is where pre planning really comes in, as all this is planned ahead of time.

Though the ''kill the main villain and things get worse'' is also pretty common. So, sure the PCs get a 20 and kill Lord Doom, the honorable, fair, reasonable villain. So then R'snark the Vile, Lord Dooms second takes over the evil plot....muhhahahaha.

In your campaign, if the players attain a macguffin that is necessary to undo the evil plot, but the players are too dense to figure out what it is and destroys it ahead of time. How do you handle that? Would you even let it come down to such a simple thing in the first place?

I'm not a fan of ''macguffins'' and don't use them. The PCs might find a sword of demon slaying to fight off the demon horde, maybe even the legendary artifact blade of demon's doom, but I don't go for ''only the One Sword can defeat the demons".

Another way to phrase it would be "D&D the Adventure Path game".

I don't really know much about the 4/5E ''adventure path'' or the Pathfinder ''whatever they call their paths''.

As has been shown in this thread on multiple occasions, it really means of what you think of when you hear the word "plot". Your definition seem to change with every post, so it's a bit confusing.

As was suggested, I think a bit by bit example would help us all. That is why I started with ''my definitions''.

And it is a bit hard to just ''ask'' posters...as some will just ''vote against me'' because ''reasons''. The bit by bit example will be much better.

Mordaedil

2017-10-11, 07:41 AM

Wait, so you don't actually railroad players, but you call it railroading?

Is that why people are confused?

Lorsa

2017-10-11, 08:15 AM

ImNotTrevor

2017-10-11, 08:15 AM

Well, maybe is was not popular play in your small social circle, but it is a good thing you don't represent the world or anything.

I'm not sure you have your time line right, but what you want an adventure that was only published in like 1975? I'm not sure if you know this bit, but for a long time DM's just made up their own adventures. It's one way to tell an Old School DM: They make up their own stuff.

When D&D was first around, there was no such thing as an "adventure game" where you went on plotlined adventures. It just didn't exist. People played it like a variation on the Wargame genre, which it was. (The very first D&D was essentially an expansion of a wargame called Chainmail, and assumed you owned that book to reference its rules, and for adventures outdoors it outright suggested stealing rules from an entirely different game.) Basic D&D and AD&D were just composites of the first edition materials into one-stop-shopping packs.

What I'm guessing is that you got into D&D probably around the mid 80's, when adventure paths were first becoming popular. Due to this, you have the mistaken impression that your first exposure to D&D is what D&D has ALWAYS WAS. Which is not true.

This is true, but also note this is just one DM's way of doing things. And unlike the modern day D&D folks, he did not inject his own ''house rules'' into the ''official game''. Gygax was all ways very clear on ''it's your game do what you want '' and ''the rules we publish are just suggestions''.

Your summation of Gygax is patently wrong. You're talking about a guy who said that if you don't know the DATE AND DAY OF THE WEEK in the setting whenever your players ask, you should not DM.

He said that having things like plots and character personalities was Amateur Theater, and had nothing to do with D&D.

Gygax had a very clear idea of how D&D was meant to be played, and thought other ways were wrong.

Unless you wish to reveal more of your ignorance, I suggest stepping away from this line of argument. At this point you're grasping at straws.

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-11, 08:24 AM

Wait, so you don't actually railroad players, but you call it railroading?

Is that why people are confused?

He railroads his players. By his own description of his games, and even under the strictest definition of railroading, he gleefully and unabashedly railroads.

He calls anything a DM does that's more proactive or restricting than passively sitting there and saying "yes" to everything the players say or do or want "railroading", claims that the only alternative to railroading is pure random chaos driven by "tyrant players" and "jerks", and claims that anyone who has ever GMed a "normal game" has railroaded.

He does this in order to make "railroading" a good thing that everyone does, so that he can fig-leaf his actual hardcore railroading.

Pleh

2017-10-11, 09:34 AM

This is a big admission. And I think it is very wrong. Why, exactly, should the DM put the players fun ahead of their own? Why is the players fun so important, but the DM's fun does not matter at all?

I, on the other hand, think everyone's fun is important and no ones fun is more important then anyone else's.

Oh, look, more self-righteous posturing.:smallsigh:

I never said the DM's fun does not matter at all. Once again, you are arguing against a position I never maintained. Of course everyone playing is supposed to have fun, including the DM.

You are suggesting my comments are to be applied to scenarios where the DM never gets to have fun. That is not at all the same context into which I was speaking. That suggests a nonhealthy table with deeper issues that need to be dealt with via OOC discussion. If OOC discussion does not resolve the issue, the game is not worth continuing. If any player is consistently not enjoying the game and the group can not come to a consensus on an acceptable modification to fix the problem, that player needs to step out of the game.

This is completely a different scenario than what I was talking about.

I was talking about when this problem is spontaneous rather than chronic; and otherwise healthy group that runs into a set of circumstances that creates a momentary problem for the group, rather than a reoccurring symptom of a broken table ethic.

To again elaborate my point in this case: because we do not live in a perfect world, not everyone will be able to have the same amount of fun with every game all the time. That is to say, even in healthy groups, sometimes not everyone will get to have fun at every moment of gameplay.

Having a general policy for how to handle these scenarios is important. I argue the default should be that the DM takes the fall if anyone needs to do so (again, to be clear, if it becomes a frequent occurrence, something deeper is wrong with the game that needs to be remedied before continuing).

My policy is based (as others have mentioned in this thread previously) on the fact that DMing is essentially a similar activity as hosting a meal among friends and acquaintances. Similar to TTRPGs, before a problem is experienced, the host gains an upper hand on enjoying the experience (again, if the relationship and activity are healthy, authentic, and sincere to start) as they are gaining the opportunity to impress, to share a piece of themselves, and create something special just to give away to others. The guests are already expected to accommodate the host in several ways, respecting their home, house rules, formalities, and honoring their service to the guests. They can't simply enjoy their meal any way they please unless their host specifically invites them to "make themselves at home," which releases them to act more to their own choosing.

Once again, if there exists nothing toxic in the group, the host's reward is in their own ability to satisfy their guests. It's in the guests legitimately feeling impressed by the quality of the atmosphere and service and leaving the meal with a greater appreciation of the host. The DM should not feel good about their game if any of their players did not enjoy it (for reasons that were beyond the player's ability to control). Therefore, when something does go wrong, it's really the host's responsibility to see to it that the problem gets resolved and if anyone has to pay for something broken when there is no clear fault belonging to any one person, it falls on the host, who knew the risks of inviting others into their home.

The general concept of railroading breaks this policy. It happens when the players break the DM's plans through a fair use of Player Agency. Throwing away the broken plans may not be fun for the DM, but denying the valid use of Player Agency is not fun for the player(s). Since someone is not going to have fun, but no one is directly at fault as everyone was playing fairly, the DM should be the one to eat the loss and help the game move on to get back to a place where everyone is having fun. Again, please note that this is a default policy to a very specific set of circumstances, not a universal rule for all game problems. :smalltongue:

And like I said before, this might involve stopping the session and taking a break to let the DM rehash their plans. This also doesn't stop a player from volunteering to help rectify the game's problem. The more the DM has cultivated a spirit of cooperation, trust, and enthusiasm for the game, the more likely the players, despite not being directly responsible to pay for problems, might feel inclined to do so anyway. That's just good table ethic.

But that's more or less why I hold myself as a DM to the standard that my fun as a DM takes a lower priority than the fun of my players: their fun is my objective, and I shouldn't be having fun if they aren't able to have fun (when they are participating honestly in good spirit and within the rules). I will set aside some of my own fun to give the game the momentum it needs to start being fun for the whole table again, and if after several attempts it continues to not be fun for someone, we'll sit down and talk about what needs to change or maybe even retire the game.

And yes, when gaming with others, I usually expect this level of commitment from my DMs. If they aren't going far enough out of their way to keep me engaged, I see no reason to continue playing in their game. It's just a game and not one that I would likely be interested in playing.

kyoryu

2017-10-11, 10:42 AM

This is true, but also note this is just one DM's way of doing things. And unlike the modern day D&D folks, he did not inject his own ''house rules'' into the ''official game''. Gygax was all ways very clear on ''it's your game do what you want '' and ''the rules we publish are just suggestions''.

Notes on Arguing Ingenuous People, Part 2:

Here we have a classic Moving the Goalposts Fallacy. The way Gygax played was brought up explicitly as a counter to railroading being the "Normal Classic" style of gameplay, and that not railroading was somehow some new strange thing that people were donig. By bringing up Gygax's playstyle, I countered this with evidence that, in fact, the railroad style of play was a significantly later development, and the original (thus presumably classic) style of gameplay was fairly sandboxy.

Rather than rebut this actual point (which would be difficult), the goalposts were then shifted to "Well, those aren't part of the official rules". Which is irrelevant. I have clearly demonstrated that the original, classic style of the game is actually sandboxing, not railroading players through a "plot".

Two minutes in the box for goalpost shifting

The general concept of railroading breaks this policy. It happens when the players break the DM's plans through a fair use of Player Agency. Throwing away the broken plans may not be fun for the DM, but denying the valid use of Player Agency is not fun for the player(s). Since someone is not going to have fun, but no one is directly at fault as everyone was playing fairly, the DM should be the one to eat the loss and help the game move on to get back to a place where everyone is having fun. Again, please note that this is a default policy to a very specific set of circumstances, not a universal rule for all game problems. :smalltongue:

The basic contract of RPGs is:

The players control their characters.
The GM controls everything else.

By plotting out a linear sequence of events, the GM must decide what the players will do, thus breaking the core contract of the game. Changing the contract - "Okay, we don't care about making big decisions, just give us a string of cool fights to go through" is totally fine, but it should be understood by all.

Pleh

2017-10-11, 11:47 AM

The basic contract of RPGs is:

The players control their characters.
The GM controls everything else.

By plotting out a linear sequence of events, the GM must decide what the players will do, thus breaking the core contract of the game. Changing the contract - "Okay, we don't care about making big decisions, just give us a string of cool fights to go through" is totally fine, but it should be understood by all.

Oh my, yes. But a good DM does prepare some things, regardless how much or little they predict player behavior. Even if this is just rolling random encounters, it's still preparing with some expectation to how the players will respongmd

I'm just saying, if you do try to predict behavior, own up to it when you get it wrong and let their creativity win that. The player deserves as much.

Scripten

2017-10-11, 11:55 AM

I'm just saying, if you do try to predict behavior, own up to it when you get it wrong and let their creativity win that. The player deserves as much.

Yeah, but what does the DM deserve?

kyoryu

2017-10-11, 12:16 PM

Oh my, yes. But a good DM does prepare some things, regardless how much or little they predict player behavior. Even if this is just rolling random encounters, it's still preparing with some expectation to how the players will respongmd

I'm just saying, if you do try to predict behavior, own up to it when you get it wrong and let their creativity win that. The player deserves as much.

Of course the GM prepares. In all but the most insanely improvisational games, the GM prepares things.

The error only occurs when the GM starts to dictate player actions. That's stepping into areas where they *shouldn't* have authority, except as noted with mutual agreement.

Segev

2017-10-11, 01:34 PM

Clearly not. Again, simplified example for the purpose of illustration.

Sure. I was more illustrating that a quantum ogre is not a problem when the choice was effectively illusory anyway.

If the party has no reason to know what will happen in any of the possible paths, having the ogre appear no matter which path they take is not diminishing their agency any further.

Pleh

2017-10-11, 02:26 PM

Of course the GM prepares. In all but the most insanely improvisational games, the GM prepares things.

The error only occurs when the GM starts to dictate player actions. That's stepping into areas where they *shouldn't* have authority, except as noted with mutual agreement.

Correct, but I would add that some unscrupulous DMs might use this to excuse coercive behavior that doesn't dictate player actions, but punishes incorrect player actions.

Sometimes, this takes the form of railroading.

kyoryu

2017-10-11, 03:41 PM

Sure. I was more illustrating that a quantum ogre is not a problem when the choice was effectively illusory anyway.

If the party has no reason to know what will happen in any of the possible paths, having the ogre appear no matter which path they take is not diminishing their agency any further.

Agreed. You can't diminish non-existent agency :)

Correct, but I would add that some unscrupulous DMs might use this to excuse coercive behavior that doesn't dictate player actions, but punishes incorrect player actions.

Sometimes, this takes the form of railroading.

Which is then controlling the characters, by punishing "wrong" choices.

Again, this is a case where it's really, really hard to look at an *action* as railroading by itself. The action has to be looked at in context (which is, again, why I say that having a railroad (noun) is a requirement for railroading (verb)).

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-11, 04:04 PM

Which is then controlling the characters, by punishing "wrong" choices.

Again, this is a case where it's really, really hard to look at an *action* as railroading by itself. The action has to be looked at in context (which is, again, why I say that having a railroad (noun) is a requirement for railroading (verb)).

Which I think also ties back to "why" mattering -- intent and motivation make a difference. We often can't just look at something in isolation and say "that's railroading".

Is the GM saying no because what the PC would do is impossible in that setting -- or is the GM saying no because what the PC would do is counter to the GM's predetermined outcome / sequence? This assertion we keep seeing that any "no" by the GM amounts to railroading ignores any nuance of motivation or context.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-11, 09:33 PM

Because, while in the abstract everyone's fun is equally important, in practice the DM often has to put the players' fun ahead of their own in order to achieve a game which is fun for everyone. It's a piece of a advice meant to promote the kind of play that increase fun for all.

It is fine for you, but I don't agree.

Plot: A plot is the sequence of events in a story. Plot is the cause-and-effect relationship between events in a story: A fictional(ized) series of events that have some connection.

Where do we go from here? Perhaps by answering the question of "what is a story?" or "whose story are you talking about?". When I think about "story", it is based on the story of the PCs and is the sum of everything that happened from game session 1 to game session final. Is your definition different somewhere?

Well, I'm a bit more inclusive and include the DMs stories too. So like:

1)Setting Story: What is going on in the game world. The other stories are often(but not all ways) part of this story, or at least attached to it.
2)Player Character Stories: the main focus of the players.
3)DM stories: All the other stories.

The Pc's are the ''Main Characters'', and the DM's characters are more ''secondary characters'' and ''guest stars'' but they all have stories to tell.

This is what we think sometimes, but then DU says stuff like this...and it makes it wonder again.

This is a pretty well established fictional trope for ''the dragon''.

Is the GM saying no because what the PC would do is impossible in that setting -- or is the GM saying no because what the PC would do is counter to the GM's predetermined outcome / sequence?

Humm, so if the DM has no ''predetermined outcome / sequence'' then no railroading is possible?

Scripten

2017-10-11, 09:51 PM

Humm, so if the DM has no ''predetermined outcome / sequence'' then no railroading is possible?

That's basically the definition of railroading in this context so yes. Railroading is not the end all be all of bad DMing, so there are other things a DM might do that are not good in this context but railroading would be, by its nature, impossible.

georgie_leech

2017-10-11, 11:53 PM

That's basically the definition of railroading in this context so yes. Railroading is not the end all be all of bad DMing, so there are other things a DM might do that are not good in this context but railroading would be, by its nature, impossible.

Eh, I mean, the DM could still totally latch on to a potential solution that he improvised in response to a plan suggested by the Players (perhaps one they dismissed), and begin railroading from there. But that's splitting hairs a bit; I don't disagree with the thrust of your point.

Lorsa

2017-10-12, 03:18 AM

It is fine for you, but I don't agree.

So what do you do if you end up with a situation where you have to choose between fun for you and less fun for the players or fun for the players and less fun for you?

Plot: A plot is the sequence of events in a story. Plot is the cause-and-effect relationship between events in a story: A fictional(ized) series of events that have some connection.

Well, I'm a bit more inclusive and include the DMs stories too. So like:

1)Setting Story: What is going on in the game world. The other stories are often(but not all ways) part of this story, or at least attached to it.
2)Player Character Stories: the main focus of the players.
3)DM stories: All the other stories.

The Pc's are the ''Main Characters'', and the DM's characters are more ''secondary characters'' and ''guest stars'' but they all have stories to tell.

Alright. So I can see a few things here.

First of all, in some cases 1) and 3) might be the same, in the case where the DM makes the entire setting. Does that seem right to you? Also, the DM is usually in control of 1) as well, as they can decide which setting stories that are included and which are discarded. For example, I could play in Forgotten Realms and forget all about Drizzt, even though it is a setting established story.

Then there is the overlap. 1) and 3) can affect 2), but similarly 2) can affect 1) and 3). Do you agree with this? I'm not talking about magnitude comparison here, just that they *can* affect each other.

So, let's focus on 2) now. Do you agree that there are two ways to think of this story; one way is when the DM has planned ahead of time what it will be and the other where it merely evolves naturally from interaction with 1) and 3)?

As example, let's take a murder mystery.

One way to think of the story is:

The DM has decided that after being told about the murder, they should go to the murder scene. At the murder scene, they will find a piece of cloth with a symbol from a local tavern, often carried by their workers. Then the PCs will go to the tavern, where they will look around and talk to the barkeep which will tell them that one of their door-guards have been missing from work for a couple of days. The barkeep will also give them an adress to his house. When they get to the house, his wife will be there, upset and tell them her husband has recently had some money problems and fallen in with the wrong kind of people. She describes a person that often hangs out at a drug and gamling den. When the players get their, the person will resist interrogation and a fight ensues. Once defeat, he will tell them he has contact with a local assassin's guild, which have been looking for new recruits and this murder was a trial for the former door-guard. He will tell them they have a den in the catacombs below town. The players will then go to the catacombs, fight the assassin's guild and deliver the murderer to justice.

Another way to think of the story is:

The DM has decided that there has been a murder. The DM knows who committed it, what the motivations where and what can be found at the scene (which involves more than one clue). In addition, the DM has some idea of who might know what and can otherwise improvise if some additional witnesses are required that could logically have seen one thing or another. Then the DM gives the PCs the task of solving the murder and asks them what they do. The whole story may unfold as above, but it may not. Perhaps they go a different route to reach the den, perhaps they snoop around so much that the assassin's guild decided to take them out. It will depend on the PC's actions.

Can you see that in one case, the story is decided before hand, as the sequence of scenes is already set; whereas in the other case the scenes may appear in any order and include scenes the DM hadn't foreseen (such as attempting to talk to witnesses around the scene)? Do you understand that these involve two different approaches to the game and DMing?

This is a pretty well established fictional trope for ''the dragon''.

Unlike the lieutenant example you listed as well, I thought you said that if the big bad was killed, he would be replaced by his more evil brother? I don't really see that as being part of "the dragon" trope, more like "ooops, the big bad died... err... oh! I make up a brother! that'll solve the issue".

Sort of like how in some TV-shows where the main character resolves a plot and reach conclusion (like finding their father's killer or whatever), it then turns out that there was a much bigger conspiracy behind it and it is apparent to anyone with brains that this conspiracy was never part of the original idea but was just strapped on because the show was extended by one additional season. I find this to be very infuriating and tiring when it appears in some in TV-shows. Not to mention the reverse where they are canceled have to resolve in three episodes what would normally take a whole season.

Scripten

2017-10-12, 07:21 AM

Eh, I mean, the DM could still totally latch on to a potential solution that he improvised in response to a plan suggested by the Players (perhaps one they dismissed), and begin railroading from there. But that's splitting hairs a bit; I don't disagree with the thrust of your point.

True enough, but even in that case, the DM is still determining an outcome before the situation is resolved and breaking verisimilitude by denying reasonable actions. Although that's a very tough distinction to make, considering that the DM is also technically responding to the players' input.

Quertus

2017-10-12, 07:32 AM

Wait, so you don't actually railroad players, but you call it railroading?

Is that why people are confused?

Darth Ultron has been attempting to rewrite the dictionary for quite some time now. And the playground has been trying to explain how we all use our words for quite some time now.

I, personally, love this portion of the discussion, as, contrary to the belief of most, we did not (and probably still do not) use our words quite as identically as we'd like to believe.

But, while we're arguing over whether a Pumpkin is a fruit, DU is busy defining the entire garden, plus the surrounding forest, as a fruit, but saying that apples, pears, etc aren't fruit.

True enough, but even in that case, the DM is still determining an outcome before the situation is resolved and breaking verisimilitude by denying reasonable actions. Although that's a very tough distinction to make, considering that the DM is also technically responding to the players' input.

Which is just one more reason why I focus on the "denying reasonable actions" portion of the definition.

Lorsa

2017-10-12, 07:46 AM

I, personally, love this portion of the discussion, as, contrary to the belief of most, we did not (and probably still do not) use our words quite as identically as we'd like to believe.

Such is the problem of many of the intangible, more abstract words. We learn by looking at contexts and examples of when people use them. Sometimes those people use them incorrectly, sometimes we misinterpret what they are trying to point at and at other times there are groups of people that, while they have in-group consistency, are not really consistent with each other.

Roughly though, most of us have a general consensus of railroading.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-12, 08:31 AM

So what do you do if you end up with a situation where you have to choose between fun for you and less fun for the players or fun for the players and less fun for you?

Well, I do defiantly believe in Hard Fun. So that times of ''less fun'' for the players and the DM. For example, a lot of players have ''less fun'' if their character gets captured or losses their special item...but in the long run I know it will be ''more fun'' for them to escape or get the item back, so I will do it. And like for the DM example, it would be like the players asking for a ''pirate adventure'' when the DM really thinks that would be ''less fun'', but they still run the game like normal and have ''more fun'' later.

First of all, in some cases 1) and 3) might be the same, in the case where the DM makes the entire setting. Does that seem right to you? Also, the DM is usually in control of 1) as well, as they can decide which setting stories that are included and which are discarded. For example, I could play in Forgotten Realms and forget all about Drizzt, even though it is a setting established story.

Well, remember here we are just talking about Stories. So it is like:
1)The Story of the War between the Kingdoms of Albelon and Grask'Nak.
2)The Story of the young noble knight Vale Goodshield (aka Player Bob's PC)
3)The story of Good Knight Goodshields squire, Pelan(secondary character NPC controlled by the DM)

And it works out to:
1)DM has most control and Players have influence.
2)The Player has most of the control and the DM has influence.
3)DM has most control and Players have influence.

Then there is the overlap. 1) and 3) can affect 2), but similarly 2) can affect 1) and 3). Do you agree with this? I'm not talking about magnitude comparison here, just that they *can* affect each other.

In a really good story they are all mixed, tanged, together, intertwined and such together...but they don't have to be.

So, let's focus on 2) now. Do you agree that there are two ways to think of this story; one way is when the DM has planned ahead of time what it will be and the other where it merely evolves naturally from interaction with 1) and 3)?

I don't really get the ''DM story'' vs ''the player(s) stories'', and why everyone is so obsessed with ''the DMs story is all ways wrong'' and ''the player story is all ways right''. Like as soon as a DM even gives a hint of telling a story everyone just goes nuts and thinks that DM should not do that. But if a player like sneezes then everyone is like ''we must bulid a whole huge player based story around that and the ''one called dm'' must be a slave to that."

The DM has decided that after being told about the murder,

You jumped tracks here for me, the above is a PLOT, not a Story.

The whole story may unfold as above, but it may not. Perhaps they go a different route to reach the den, perhaps they snoop around so much that the assassin's guild decided to take them out. It will depend on the PC's actions.

The thing is, there IS no other way for this to unfold. The set of events must happen in order and there is no other route. Like say the PC's don't find the clue or they choose to ignore it, what could they possibly do? Now keep in mind that for this example there are no other clues or leads, as by definition the DM 'must' make them up before the gameplay. And the improve of placing the Quantum Ogre ''no matter what the PCs'' do, is just bad gameplay (Players-''our characters go to the Drunk Tavern and drink all night''. DM-"Um, while your characters are there they have a drink with a drunk door guard guy who brags about the murder he just did and how he will be an assassin soon" Players-"Woo hoo we found the killer, good work guys!")

For murder mysteries epically: the players must follow the plot clues. And even for more general plots: the players must follow plot threads.

And it is all ways much, much better...even more so for a murder mystery...for the DM to have all the details set before the game play. Otherwise the game can quickly fumble as the DM tries to make up and improv everything ''on the spot'' and tries to keep all the spontaneously made details straight. Really, very quickly, the DM can mix up something or have something not make sense. Even worse once the DM ''says'' something it is ''official reality''. So if at 6 pm the DM says ''there was no clue at location E'', they can't suddenly say at 7 pm "Oh there was two clues at location E (that did not exist at 6pm)"....and the DM might be able to do some damage control some times (DM-"Er, the clues(that did not exist) were there they were, um, just moved and hidden, to um whatever place your characters did not search"), but often such spin gets out of control fast. It is one thing for a player to miss a clue that did exist and was right there for a character to find, but it is a whole other thing for player to miss a clue that the DM had not even thought of/put in the game when their character searches for one.

It really does come down to: If the DM does not ''lead/move/force'' the characters along a plot, the plot can't happen. The game has to be a group effort with everyone playing along the same flow.

And note, your example of '' the assassin's guild decided to take them out" would be Plot 2, as Plot 1 is the murder mystery. And plot 2 is totally at the DM's whim. And it does depend a lot on the ''type'' of game everyone wants or likes. Plenty of players won't like the ''oh, so assassins will attack us all the time" plot when they are trying to ''solve the murder'', for example.

Can you see that in one case, the story is decided before hand, as the sequence of scenes is already set; whereas in the other case the scenes may appear in any order and include scenes the DM hadn't foreseen (such as attempting to talk to witnesses around the scene)? Do you understand that these involve two different approaches to the game and DMing?

This does rest a lot on the DM making more of a 'set up', as for example there are only witnesses if the DM sets them up and makes them before. And in most cases, this is a lot of fluff as a witness might say ''they heard a noise'' or ''saw a guy'', but they don't often have super hard evidence clues that by themselves break a case wide open.

And like I said above, a DM just doing crazy improv can run into lots of problems fast. Though it is easy to fix, of course, if the DM is willing to Railroad, Quantum Ogre, OOC tell the players things or let ''whatever wacky thing'' the players do is right and alter the game reality.

A lot of DM's to get ''shocked and surprised'' when they have a plot and the players do something ''way wacky'' that they, the DM, did not even think of. Very often this is simply an inexperienced DM, or just a bad DM, or a casual DM. And just as often it is a ''let it happen'' DM: where the DM likes to get ''shocked and surprised'' so they set up a plot with huge holes for the players to use to do just that.

But a good, experienced DM can cover like ''most'' of the ''wacky player stuff'' before it even happens. Though, of course, this takes a lot of skill, time and effort.

Unlike the lieutenant example you listed as well, I thought you said that if the big bad was killed, he would be replaced by his more evil brother? I don't really see that as being part of "the dragon" trope, more like "ooops, the big bad died... err... oh! I make up a brother! that'll solve the issue".?

In most cases, when you have a group of bad guys, just killing ''a villain'' does not cause the group to explode or disappear. You kill the ''boss'', then the ''second in command'' gets the promotion to boss. The next guy is not ALL WAYS super super way bad and worse...but they can be sometimes.

Scripten

2017-10-12, 09:38 AM

The thing is, there IS no other way for this to unfold. The set of events must happen in order and there is no other route.

This entire section is nothing but really poor adventure design. If you only have a single clue that leads to a single other clue that leads to a single other clue... you don't have a mystery, you have a farce.

(Players-''our characters go to the Drunk Tavern and drink all night''. DM-"Um, while your characters are there they have a drink with a drunk door guard guy who brags about the murder he just did and how he will be an assassin soon" Players-"Woo hoo we found the killer, good work guys!")

-snip-

It really does come down to: If the DM does not ''lead/move/force'' the characters along a plot, the plot can't happen. The game has to be a group effort with everyone playing along the same flow.

Because the DM going "Oh look you found my amazing clue!" is so much more rewarding for everyone than the players just sitting there until the DM gives them the answer, right? At least then you can pretend that the players are actually doing something, I guess. Even if all they're doing is "Guess what the DM is thinking about this situation" and not actually forming any conclusions based on evidence.

An actual, competent mystery adventure would have a setting that the players could explore at their leisure. As in, they choose where to go, not that there are no time constraints. At various locations there are multiple clues that they can put together to form a picture of what happened and then they either solve the mystery or (get this) they get it wrong and the bad guy gets away. A real chance of failure and consequence in a non-railroaded game? Say it isn't so!

kyoryu

2017-10-12, 10:54 AM

Scripten

2017-10-12, 11:01 AM

Remember, folks, stuff you made up in advance, knowing only part of the situation that you're going into, is Normal and Good and Coherent! Stuff you make up when you need it, when you know lots about the situation, is Wacky and Crazy and Incoherent!

You know, this actually makes DU's posts make more sense to me.

Of course he would think that improvised reactions to player actions are wacky and incoherent if he has an entire narrative already pre-planned. The more the situation changes, the more absurd his reactions would have to be to get the story back "on track". So giving the players any agency at all would result in wacky results, because his goals are fundamentally different from a non-railroading GM.

Segev

2017-10-12, 02:06 PM

Which I think also ties back to "why" mattering -- intent and motivation make a difference. We often can't just look at something in isolation and say "that's railroading".

Is the GM saying no because what the PC would do is impossible in that setting -- or is the GM saying no because what the PC would do is counter to the GM's predetermined outcome / sequence? This assertion we keep seeing that any "no" by the GM amounts to railroading ignores any nuance of motivation or context.

This gets sticky because sometimes the GM doesn't think he has a "pre-planned outcome" that he's "forcing." He just thinks that all the things the PCs are suggesting are impossible. And, coincidentally, they haven't come up with a way that is possible that isn't one of those that he pre-planned for. While this sounds obvious as I write it, the thought process that leads you there can be a trap where you're not really seeing the top-down picture and instead think, "Okay, I have come up with a way they could solve this. If they come up with something else that could work, though, I'll be thrilled for them and let them do it!" And then for some strange reason they just can't come up with something that would work.

Heck, sometimes this happens not because the GM has deliberately set up the world to railroad the players' characters, but because the GM had so overpowered the threat that his way he came up with as one possibility, just to be sure the problem is solvable, required railroading the adversaries and challenges into having a weak spot that they probably shouldn't have had. "As long as the PCs go along this route, where all the idiot balls I forced the bad guys to juggle line up, they can solve it." Of course, not really thought in those terms.

Which can be an unintentional railroad. The GM thinks he's got a sand box, but he doesn't realize he locked most of it off.

kyoryu

2017-10-12, 02:31 PM

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-12, 02:58 PM

This gets sticky because sometimes the GM doesn't think he has a "pre-planned outcome" that he's "forcing." He just thinks that all the things the PCs are suggesting are impossible. And, coincidentally, they haven't come up with a way that is possible that isn't one of those that he pre-planned for. While this sounds obvious as I write it, the thought process that leads you there can be a trap where you're not really seeing the top-down picture and instead think, "Okay, I have come up with a way they could solve this. If they come up with something else that could work, though, I'll be thrilled for them and let them do it!" And then for some strange reason they just can't come up with something that would work.

Heck, sometimes this happens not because the GM has deliberately set up the world to railroad the players' characters, but because the GM had so overpowered the threat that his way he came up with as one possibility, just to be sure the problem is solvable, required railroading the adversaries and challenges into having a weak spot that they probably shouldn't have had. "As long as the PCs go along this route, where all the idiot balls I forced the bad guys to juggle line up, they can solve it." Of course, not really thought in those terms.

Which can be an unintentional railroad. The GM thinks he's got a sand box, but he doesn't realize he locked most of it off.

This is part of why I get so intense about wanting rich competent worldbuilding, and a rules system that's coherent with that setting and the type of game (actual coherent, not Forge-term-of-art "coherent"); the two should form a consistent framework that can be shared by all at the table, and inform their decisions and expectations.

The GM can base his decisions on that framework, and the fairness of those decisions can be judged against that framework. Rulings should be consistent and informed, and not 1-off.

Lorsa

2017-10-12, 03:52 PM

Well, I do defiantly believe in Hard Fun. So that times of ''less fun'' for the players and the DM. For example, a lot of players have ''less fun'' if their character gets captured or losses their special item...but in the long run I know it will be ''more fun'' for them to escape or get the item back, so I will do it. And like for the DM example, it would be like the players asking for a ''pirate adventure'' when the DM really thinks that would be ''less fun'', but they still run the game like normal and have ''more fun'' later.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "Hard fun". It sounds like you believe in delayed gratification and that the end justify the means as long as gratification comes 'somewhere' down the line.

Well, remember here we are just talking about Stories. So it is like:
1)The Story of the War between the Kingdoms of Albelon and Grask'Nak.
2)The Story of the young noble knight Vale Goodshield (aka Player Bob's PC)
3)The story of Good Knight Goodshields squire, Pelan(secondary character NPC controlled by the DM)

And it works out to:
1)DM has most control and Players have influence.
2)The Player has most of the control and the DM has influence.
3)DM has most control and Players have influence.

In a really good story they are all mixed, tanged, together, intertwined and such together...but they don't have to be.

Alright, you think that way.

Let me then ask why The Story of the War between the Kingdoms of Whatever or The STory of Good Knight Goodshields squire matter at all to the game? Do they have any intrinsic value by themselves?

Personally I think the only story that Matters is 2). The Story of Player Character Whatever. Every story ever told should be (in my opinion) about the player characters. The only way in which the other stories matter is in the way they are mixed, tangled and intertwined with the PCs' story.

I don't really get the ''DM story'' vs ''the player(s) stories'', and why everyone is so obsessed with ''the DMs story is all ways wrong'' and ''the player story is all ways right''. Like as soon as a DM even gives a hint of telling a story everyone just goes nuts and thinks that DM should not do that. But if a player like sneezes then everyone is like ''we must bulid a whole huge player based story around that and the ''one called dm'' must be a slave to that."

Because the game is about the story of the PCs. The DM HELPS tell that story. Without the DM, the story of the PCs couldn't be told. The players and the DM make that story TOGETHER. But if the DM starts telling a different story, say about some NPC or some cosmic conflict or whatever, it is rarely very fun for the players as that is a story they can't contribute to.

The way I see, players and DM work together to create the story of the PCs. That's what the "book" (if looking at a transcript in reverse) is about.

You jumped tracks here for me, the above is a PLOT, not a Story.{/quote]

You are right in a way. What wrote was the PLOT of the STORY of "The PCs solve the Murder on X". So it is both a story and a plot.

The point was to illustrate that there were two ways to tell the story. One where the entire PLOT is written in advance and one where it is fluid and will be written during play.

[QUOTE=Darth Ultron;22470186]The thing is, there IS no other way for this to unfold. The set of events must happen in order and there is no other route. Like say the PC's don't find the clue or they choose to ignore it, what could they possibly do? Now keep in mind that for this example there are no other clues or leads, as by definition the DM 'must' make them up before the gameplay. And the improve of placing the Quantum Ogre ''no matter what the PCs'' do, is just bad gameplay (Players-''our characters go to the Drunk Tavern and drink all night''. DM-"Um, while your characters are there they have a drink with a drunk door guard guy who brags about the murder he just did and how he will be an assassin soon" Players-"Woo hoo we found the killer, good work guys!")

Well, first of all, I did mention that there should ideally be more than one clue. I would've gone with three myself, to give a total of five obvious transitions from the first "Murder Scene" scene. One for each clue, one for investigating the victim and possible motivations for killing them and one for searching for witnesses.

Players are crafty creatures and might come up with more scene transitions, but these were the five that were "obvious" to me.

As for "the DM must make them up before the gameplay", it depends what we are talking about. For the murder scene, yeah, probably the DM would need some idea of what it looks like and what's there (although I HAVE improvised an entire murder scene on occasion when there was no time to prepare).

In regards to witnesses, I really don't see why. If the players go looking for them; the DM can easily come up with what is plausible that people nearby saw or heard. For example, an old drunk might have seen two men walking down the street late at night towards the house, and one of them walking back soon thereafter whereas the other came running much later. He could possibly give a rough description.

Looking for who the victim was and why they were murdered could be another route. It's something the DM either has to think about in advance or improvise on the spot if they forgot and the players go poking in that direction. Did the assassin's guild just choose the victim at random or did someone actually want them killed? Perhaps it was a local "commoner leader", trying to inspire rebellion against the Nobles? That would make it possible to find the assassin's den by first going through the person that ordered the hit.

Of course, in the first example I wrote, there is no need for all that. The DM has already given the One Clue and if the players follow it (which they will), it will inevitably lead them to the second, then the third etc etc.

For murder mysteries epically: the players must follow the plot clues. And even for more general plots: the players must follow plot threads.

I've run murder mysteries where I gave the players total freedom to investigate it however they please. I made sure they'd always have avenues to explore so they wouldn't get "stuck", but I had no idea how they'd solve it in the end.

I've played in a murder mystery run pretty much exactly like the first example of a story plot I wrote. It was quite annoying, as in the end I didn't feel like I had actually solved anything. Following breadcrumbs is not very challenging, nor very satisfying (to me).

And it is all ways much, much better...even more so for a murder mystery...for the DM to have all the details set before the game play. Otherwise the game can quickly fumble as the DM tries to make up and improv everything ''on the spot'' and tries to keep all the spontaneously made details straight. Really, very quickly, the DM can mix up something or have something not make sense. Even worse once the DM ''says'' something it is ''official reality''. So if at 6 pm the DM says ''there was no clue at location E'', they can't suddenly say at 7 pm "Oh there was two clues at location E (that did not exist at 6pm)"....and the DM might be able to do some damage control some times (DM-"Er, the clues(that did not exist) were there they were, um, just moved and hidden, to um whatever place your characters did not search"), but often such spin gets out of control fast. It is one thing for a player to miss a clue that did exist and was right there for a character to find, but it is a whole other thing for player to miss a clue that the DM had not even thought of/put in the game when their character searches for one.

I agree that it helps for the DM to have as much details as possible set before the game play. It is absolutely impossible to have ALL the details set though. I mean, what if they PCs go looking for whatever the victim has been doing lately? Has ANY DM ever made a comprehensive list of the latest week's doings and whereabouts of a victim? I doubt it. If the players ask for it, you have to IMPROVISE something that makes sense based on your knowledge of the victim.

I remember once where I had a haunted house and the player asked for all the residents that had ever been living in the house (which I had figured out), but then also wanted to know their children and where they lived and whatnot (which I hadn't figured out). Considering that this was a modern era game, and the player worked for the federal law enforcement, such information could be obtained. So I had to figure something out.

So again, no DM can make up all the details of a setting before play. It is impossible. Flat out impossible. Therefore, there are two options; either make sure the characters follow a certain path where the details HAVE been set, or improvise.

And, contrary to what you might somehow think, improvisation can be coherent and make perfect sense.

It really does come down to: If the DM does not ''lead/move/force'' the characters along a plot, the plot can't happen. The game has to be a group effort with everyone playing along the same flow.

Wait a minute. I thought you said a plot was simply the sequence of events in a story? So now you are saying a story can only happen if the DM leads or moves the players through it?

And then you say that the game has to be a "group effort"? How is it a group effort when only one person is doing ALL THE STORYTELLING? Can you see how this doesn't compute?

What I propose is that it is indeed possible to let the players decide the plot. As I said above, rather than following the clue they could question witnesses, or investigate the victim. Both of these would lead to a different plot, but the story would remain the same (the one of The PCs and the murder on X").

And note, your example of '' the assassin's guild decided to take them out" would be Plot 2, as Plot 1 is the murder mystery. And plot 2 is totally at the DM's whim. And it does depend a lot on the ''type'' of game everyone wants or likes. Plenty of players won't like the ''oh, so assassins will attack us all the time" plot when they are trying to ''solve the murder'', for example.

Sure, it is true that plot 2 is at the DM's whim. But it isn't triggered only because of the DM's whim. It is triggered because the players have been far too obvious and conspicuous when trying to solve the murder, so the assassin's guild gets cold feet and decides to attack.

It's not like "it will happen all the time", rather than something that hopefully at the end will make them say "oh yeah, we really weren't careful enough when asking around, where we?".

This does rest a lot on the DM making more of a 'set up', as for example there are only witnesses if the DM sets them up and makes them before. And in most cases, this is a lot of fluff as a witness might say ''they heard a noise'' or ''saw a guy'', but they don't often have super hard evidence clues that by themselves break a case wide open.

It might not break a case wide open, but with enough witnesses, it might provide a lead or some pieces of a puzzle.

And like I said above, a DM just doing crazy improv can run into lots of problems fast. Though it is easy to fix, of course, if the DM is willing to Railroad, Quantum Ogre, OOC tell the players things or let ''whatever wacky thing'' the players do is right and alter the game reality.

I really don't see the improvisation leading to "lots of problems fast". I've been having a fair share of improvisation in all my games, ever since I started DMing over 20 years ago, and none of them have fell apart in the way you've described.

As long as whatever you come up with is coherent and fit with all the previously established facts, nothing will go wrong.

What's with this improvisation hate?

A lot of DM's to get ''shocked and surprised'' when they have a plot and the players do something ''way wacky'' that they, the DM, did not even think of. Very often this is simply an inexperienced DM, or just a bad DM, or a casual DM. And just as often it is a ''let it happen'' DM: where the DM likes to get ''shocked and surprised'' so they set up a plot with huge holes for the players to use to do just that.

But a good, experienced DM can cover like ''most'' of the ''wacky player stuff'' before it even happens. Though, of course, this takes a lot of skill, time and effort.

And an even more experienced DM can cover most of the "wacky player stuff" before it even happens and improvise GOOD when (not if) the players attempt something the DM didn't foresee.

There'll always be that time when you are caught off guard though. It IS going to happen.

I mean, for one of my crime solving games in a WoD-inspired world (though not identical to it), there was a demon behind a lot of murders in a city. When the player finally confronted the demon, instead of trying to kill her, the player instead tried to recruit her to, well, basically the supernatural division of FBI. I honestly had not seen that coming. I thought for sure that the player would simply go "evil *Wrath demon responsible for murders, best to destroy it". Instead I was faced with a recruitment pitch.

The worst part was that from the demon's perspective, this was actually a pretty good deal. She had never heard of this supernatural division before, and figured it was a good way to gather intelligence on it (since it was a new unknown threat). Especially since the player had promised to supply here with a slow but steady influx of essence.

So now the player had a Wrath-based demon of vengeance in her team. I had definitely NOT planned for that.

If you think that you can cover ALL the bases in regards to potential player action, you either have unimaginative players or suffer from hubris.

In most cases, when you have a group of bad guys, just killing ''a villain'' does not cause the group to explode or disappear. You kill the ''boss'', then the ''second in command'' gets the promotion to boss. The next guy is not ALL WAYS super super way bad and worse...but they can be sometimes.

Sure. If the story is "destroy this evil organisation". Then the Big Bad is really the organisation, not one person. Typically though when people speak of the Big Bad in these contexts, the mean the big cahuna. The one that is so imperative to the evil plot that without him/her/it, everything falls apart.

But yes, evil organisations do exist, and they might not have an obvious "Big Bad" that could make or break the outcome of whatever they're trying to do that the PCs are trying to stop.

Quertus

2017-10-12, 05:24 PM

And it is all ways much, much better...even more so for a murder mystery...for the DM to have all the details set before the game play.

Strongly agree. However, this doesn't mean that the GM won't sometimes have to fill in gaps, like what color someone's underwear is, or just how many pairs of boxers someone packed. Because, sometimes, the PCs are tracking clues that don't exist, or are evaluating things that the GM hasn't thought of.

The thing is, there IS no other way for this to unfold.

For murder mysteries epically: the players must follow the plot clues. And even for more general plots: the players must follow plot threads.

This entire section is nothing but really poor adventure design. If you only have a single clue that leads to a single other clue that leads to a single other clue... you don't have a mystery, you have a farce.

Now, this is interesting.

If your primary concern is realism, then, realistically, there may be zero, one, or more than one way that the players could conceivably gather the necessary clues to solve the mystery.

Now, most GMs won't run the perfectly realistic but completely unsolvable mystery, because most GMs believe that most players wouldn't find that fun.

As a player, I, for example, am usually in the "**** human rights, abduct them all, and give them all lie detectors / truth serum / veritas serum / mind rape" camp, whenever possible. Which likely opens up whole new avenues for success - and for failure. But, most GMs who have planned out "this is how the game will go" are neither able to adapt to such innovative strategies, nor willing to play a game that is fundamentally different from what they had envisioned.

Now, modern game theory says that the best games - the ones that are the most well designed - are not fragile, do not have single points of failure. The "Rule of Three" (which says that, for anything you want the players to know, there should be at least 3 sources of that info / st least 3 clues / at least 3 unique paths) is kinda the flagship of this modern school of thought.

It seems like a Really Good Idea (TM) to me. But is there ever a time when it is a bad plan?

Well, personally, I don't follow the Rule of Three (despite advocating its use) because I don't care what the PCs do. I don't have a preplanned "the PCs will interact with plot X in Y way". No, I just have plots M-X going on "in the background", and I let the PCs interact with them (or not) however they see fit.

But a murder mystery? How do you craft one to follow the Rule of Three without making it feel... wrong? Alternately, if you craft it "realistically", what do you do if the players miss the one and only instance of a vital clue / the perpetrator succeeds in incinerating the evidence or fleeing the country before the investigators catch on?

I think this is fairly common, actually. And it's a fairly nasty version of railroading, because the GM is unaware that he's doing it, but the effects are the same on the players as a deliberate railroad.

The trick is giving any player plan some possibility of success. A useful technique to get there is to deliberately *not* plot out possible solutions to a problem.

And then there's me. I just present the scenario. I don't care what the players will want to do with it, or, once I know what they want to do with it, whether that's even possible.

kyoryu

2017-10-12, 05:32 PM

And then there's me. I just present the scenario. I don't care what the players will want to do with it, or, once I know what they want to do with it, whether that's even possible.

Cool?

I mean, that's what I certainly try to do, but I don't see how that's relevant to the fact that what I described is reasonably common.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-12, 05:39 PM

This entire section is nothing but really poor adventure design. If you only have a single clue that leads to a single other clue that leads to a single other clue... you don't have a mystery, you have a farce.

Well, we are trying to use a simple example...not type a 500,00 ''adventure design''.

An actual, competent mystery adventure would have a setting that the players could explore at their leisure. As in, they choose where to go, not that there are no time constraints. At various locations there are multiple clues that they can put together to form a picture of what happened and then they either solve the mystery or (get this) they get it wrong and the bad guy gets away. A real chance of failure and consequence in a non-railroaded game? Say it isn't so!

So the characters can find the clues and solve a mystery? Um, ok, so you do it the normal way then?

And the ''failure'' sure is a bad idea....this is what I'd call a Dull and Pointless game. The Players spend, say three weeks of real time trying to solve the mystery....and fail. So you as DM just sit back, put your feet on the table and say ''Oh well, you guys tried''? Failure is one thing...but for a DM to just sit back and watch the players fail slowly is just mean.

Remember, folks, stuff you made up in advance, knowing only part of the situation that you're going into, is Normal and Good and Coherent! Stuff you make up when you need it, when you know lots about the situation, is Wacky and Crazy and Incoherent!

Um...the Players do the Wacky and Crazy stuff...not the DM :)

I'm not really sure what you mean by "Hard fun". It sounds like you believe in delayed gratification and that the end justify the means as long as gratification comes 'somewhere' down the line.

Hard Fun is fun that is a challenge, is not easy, takes a lot of effort, and often contains lots of ''not fun parts''.

Let me then ask why The Story of the War between the Kingdoms of Whatever or The STory of Good Knight Goodshields squire matter at all to the game? Do they have any intrinsic value by themselves?

Estimated value: Two bits.

Personally I think the only story that Matters is 2). The Story of Player Character Whatever. Every story ever told should be (in my opinion) about the player characters. The only way in which the other stories matter is in the way they are mixed, tangled and intertwined with the PCs' story.

And this goes along with your ''player focus''. Why do only the players matter? Why would you say the DM does not matter?

Because the game is about the story of the PCs. The DM HELPS tell that story. Without the DM, the story of the PCs couldn't be told. The players and the DM make that story TOGETHER. But if the DM starts telling a different story, say about some NPC or some cosmic conflict or whatever, it is rarely very fun for the players as that is a story they can't contribute to.

The way I see, players and DM work together to create the story of the PCs. That's what the "book" (if looking at a transcript in reverse) is about.

I'm not sure many games say ''this story is all about the PCs'', most are much more inclusive and say ''everyone''.

And it is true that, maybe, the players won't be able to contribute to a story that is not their own personal story, but why is that a bad thing?

I've played in a murder mystery run pretty much exactly like the first example of a story plot I wrote. It was quite annoying, as in the end I didn't feel like I had actually solved anything. Following breadcrumbs is not very challenging, nor very satisfying (to me).

Well, murder mysteries are not for everyone. A murder mystery IS a lot of following breadcrumbs. And, assuming the DM wants the players, not the characters to solve the mystery for real it is a very, very, very hard delicate balance of ''giving the players information'' and ''letting them solve the mystery''(for real). It is not for everyone.

I agree that it helps for the DM to have as much details as possible set before the game play. It is absolutely impossible to have ALL the details set though. I mean, what if they PCs go looking for whatever the victim has been doing lately? Has ANY DM ever made a comprehensive list of the latest week's doings and whereabouts of a victim? I doubt it. If the players ask for it, you have to IMPROVISE something that makes sense based on your knowledge of the victim.

Well, yes, DM's that create murder mysteries do this all the time. This is where the ''long, hard work'' of being a DM comes in. But really writing up a weeks history for a victim is pretty basic for a murder mystery. At least if that history has something to do with the plot. But sure and DM can make up random fluff to fill in any time.

So again, no DM can make up all the details of a setting before play. It is impossible. Flat out impossible. Therefore, there are two options; either make sure the characters follow a certain path where the details HAVE been set, or improvise.

And, contrary to what you might somehow think, improvisation can be coherent and make perfect sense.

Only a crazy Dm, or the Second Life Type DM would make up all the details of a setting before play. A normal DM is just making up the details of the adventure.

Improvisation is hard to keep straight though and is very tricky. As I said, it is very easy to slip up on a detail or point or worse. And, sure, it works graet if you keep things very simple. If your ''mystery'' is a Scooby Do level mystery, then sure you can improvise up to 11.....and your player's will still have their characters catch ''Mr. McGee!"

And it only gets worse when you start talking about weeks or months of time.

Wait a minute. I thought you said a plot was simply the sequence of events in a story? So now you are saying a story can only happen if the DM leads or moves the players through it?

Um, I said plot? Plot. It is right there: plot.

And then you say that the game has to be a "group effort"? How is it a group effort when only one person is doing ALL THE STORYTELLING? Can you see how this doesn't compute?

Group effort, yes. I wonder why you think ''only one person'' is Storytelling though? And I'd guess your thinking ''that one person'' is the DM? So that is wrong in your mind? But, oddly, if the ''one person'' is a player, you'd love that idea.

Storytelling, like just about everything in the game is a group effort. And sure it is not a fair split, the DM does like 75% of it and the players do 25%....but this is true about all most everything in the game. The DM does ''more'' then the players; this is basic.

What I propose is that it is indeed possible to let the players decide the plot. As I said above, rather than following the clue they could question witnesses, or investigate the victim. Both of these would lead to a different plot, but the story would remain the same (the one of The PCs and the murder on X").

Except it is not? If the players have their characters ''turn left'' they don't alter reality make make a new plot.

Like say the DM makes a whole murder mystery plot full of details and put it in a location in the setting full of details. The PC's come along, go to the murder location and then utterly ignore al the DM's clues. Ok. Then the players are like ''we do X, do we find a clue?", and it is ''something the DM did not think of''. Ok. So, assuming the DM does not just say ''no clue found, try again", the DM just imprrovs a ''new'' clue.....to the murder mystery plot.

So the players can celebrate and high five...as they made a tiny ripple in a river.

Sure, it is true that plot 2 is at the DM's whim. But it isn't triggered only because of the DM's whim. It is triggered because the players have been far too obvious and conspicuous when trying to solve the murder, so the assassin's guild gets cold feet and decides to attack.

I'm not a fan of ''triggered actions'' as they feel so weak and spineless....like the DM can ''only'' react when and if the players trigger it. It's like saying the DM can only act if the player wish it and let it happen.

There'll always be that time when you are caught off guard though. It IS going to happen.

Yes, I do remember it well: 1992, on a Thursday, I was so caught off guard.... (And..my gosh, I had no Internet (and no, I'm not counting my CompuServe BBS as ''internet'' ever), no cell phone...and..and..and honest to gosh Music Videos were played on MTV(but not for too much longer...)

Quertus

2017-10-12, 05:47 PM

Cool?

I mean, that's what I certainly try to do, but I don't see how that's relevant to the fact that what I described is reasonably common.

Ah, sorry, I wasn't verbose enough. :smallredface:

I was trying to say several things. I'll probably forget some.

I was agreeing with your general notion of accidental railroading.

I was describing a completely different approach - one that I use - that the players could easily misidentify as subconsciously attempting to force a single path when it repeatedly rejects certain courses of action.

I was thinking out loud about just what types of safety mechanisms I do (and don't) have to prevent my technique from becoming a subconscious railroad instead of a "pure" simulation.

And I was making a futile attempt to once again prod DU into recognizing different ways of playing the game.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-12, 07:32 PM

Strongly agree. However, this doesn't mean that the GM won't sometimes have to fill in gaps, like what color someone's underwear is, or just how many pairs of boxers someone packed. Because, sometimes, the PCs are tracking clues that don't exist, or are evaluating things that the GM hasn't thought of.

One of the BIG jobs of a DM is to ''fill in the gaps'', all ways. This has always been true, always will be.

Now, most GMs won't run the perfectly realistic but completely unsolvable mystery, because most GMs believe that most players wouldn't find that fun.

This is fiction vs reality. And reality is not all ways ''fun''. The real world is full of unsolved mysteries.

As a player, I, for example, am usually in the "**** human rights, abduct them all, and give them all lie detectors / truth serum / veritas serum / mind rape" camp, whenever possible. Which likely opens up whole new avenues for success - and for failure. But, most GMs who have planned out "this is how the game will go" are neither able to adapt to such innovative strategies, nor willing to play a game that is fundamentally different from what they had envisioned.

Well, as an anarchist myself that sounds good to me....but I'm sure few others would agree.

Mordaedil

2017-10-13, 01:50 AM

You are not an anarchist, get the bleep outta here.

Lorsa

2017-10-13, 02:37 AM

A general reflection before I (hopefully later today sometime) answer DU's latest post:

I recently checked into The Angry GM again, and found that in one of his long-winded posts about session 0, he talked about the 8 core engagements of gaming.

This list was actually what caught my attention the most, as it spelled out something I only had a vague intuition of.

You can find the post here: http://theangrygm.com/session-zero-part-preface/

The best thing with this list of "8 core engagements" seems to be that it is based on actual academic research instead of being just a bunch of stuff some people at a forum thought up. That is, the list seems to be very accurate (although based on video games, so TAG had to interpret it in the light of RPGs) and far better than whatever the GNS theory came up with.

Anyway, when reading that list I realized something interesting.

I think the majority of GMs that either builds railroads or use railroading approach the game primarily with the Narrative engagement. The problem is that this resonates very poorly with the majority (though not all) of the other engagements.

The problem, of course, is that a lot of this goes unspoken. So the Narrative-engagement GM forgets that there might be other engagements in the game and becomes both surprised and angry when the players try to ruin the "great story". Perhaps without knowing it themselves, they make the only core engagement of the game "Narrative", which frustrates a lot of players who came looking for other stuff.

I think it is very hard for a GM with a Narrative engagement to run games with another core engagement. The game simply wouldn't be fun for them. Which is why it is imperative to be explicit and upfront about this before the game starts.

Basically, the GM pitch should be "I'm going to make a great story which you will play through. If you're looking for real agency, challenge or escapism you can go somewhere else. If you're looking for a great story, this is the place."

Pleh

2017-10-13, 07:10 AM

I think this is fairly common, actually. And it's a fairly nasty version of railroading, because the GM is unaware that he's doing it, but the effects are the same on the players as a deliberate railroad.

The trick is giving any player plan some possibility of success. A useful technique to get there is to deliberately *not* plot out possible solutions to a problem.

Actually, it's not only common, but additionally it's inspired by fantasy literature.

Smaug could only be slain by the one remaining black arrow hitting him right in the spot where he was missing the one scale.

As with all railroading, it isn't bad if the players accept the premise and if the DM let's the party explore other options. They tried drowning Smaug in molten gold (in the movie, I forget if that was in the book), which damaged and angered Smaug, but didn't slay him. They were still able to elude or evade him, but direct confrontation was suicide.

If done actually well, it can produce an air of desperation and despair in the characters. Problem is that it usually creates frustration and resentment in the players first.

NorthernPhoenix

2017-10-13, 07:26 AM

No amount is too much as long as long as the players enjoy it. That isn't very nuanced but it's my measuring stick.

Quertus

2017-10-13, 10:08 AM

I recently checked into The Angry GM again, and found that in one of his long-winded posts about session 0, he talked about the 8 core engagements of gaming.

This list was actually what caught my attention the most, as it spelled out something I only had a vague intuition of.

You can find the post here: http://theangrygm.com/session-zero-part-preface/

The best thing with this list of "8 core engagements" seems to be that it is based on actual academic research instead of being just a bunch of stuff some people at a forum thought up. That is, the list seems to be very accurate (although based on video games, so TAG had to interpret it in the light of RPGs) and far better than whatever the GNS theory came up with.

I love that article. It's helped me understand and discuss a lot of finer details about the gaming experience. I highly recommend everyone with any interest in discussing gaming read it.

That having been said, it is also terrible. In Angry's usual opinionated style, he mentions but dismisses the fact that not everyone agrees with this division. Well, let me tell you, they will group under a single heading both details that are what I greatly enjoy about gaming and details that are a serious detriment to my fun.

So, if everybody just robotically accepts it as the Word of God, then it's terrible. But, absorbed intelligently, and with a grain of salt, I believe it could be a core component to RPG communication.

kyoryu

2017-10-13, 10:37 AM

Basically, the GM pitch should be "I'm going to make a great story which you will play through. If you're looking for real agency, challenge or escapism you can go somewhere else. If you're looking for a great story, this is the place."

Except that you can have "story" without railroading. Lots of games are aimed at doing just that.

I mean, I don't disagree that most railroading GMs are probably trying to tell a great story, and they think that's the point, and the railroading is done to keep the story moving and show off the cool twists and turns. But it's not the only way of making a game about "story".

ImNotTrevor

2017-10-13, 10:46 AM

I love that article. It's helped me understand and discuss a lot of finer details about the gaming experience. I highly recommend everyone with any interest in discussing gaming read it.

That having been said, it is also terrible. In Angry's usual opinionated style, he mentions but dismisses the fact that not everyone agrees with this division. Well, let me tell you, they will group under a single heading both details that are what I greatly enjoy about gaming and details that are a serious detriment to my fun.

So, if everybody just robotically accepts it as the Word of God, then it's terrible. But, absorbed intelligently, and with a grain of salt, I believe it could be a core component to RPG communication.

A quick note about said division, from someone who read the actual market research study that produced this:

The divisions were not made arbitrarily. They were based on 8 places where the datapoints tended to cluster. (Kind of like how there is a wide spectrum of possible colors, but there is a certain band of them we refer to as being "green" even if it's got some blue or red mixed in.) The study never claims that all people fit neatly into one of the 8 boxes. Just that many do, and more often than not a box will account for most of your preference or a 50/50 splot between two. To reference my parenthetical comment, you can be a "Green" gamer who has some yellow or purple mixed in. But that's fine.

Quertus

2017-10-13, 11:25 AM

Except that you can have "story" without railroading. Lots of games are aimed at doing just that.

I mean, I don't disagree that most railroading GMs are probably trying to tell a great story, and they think that's the point, and the railroading is done to keep the story moving and show off the cool twists and turns. But it's not the only way of making a game about "story".

So, to play devil's advocate for a while, how can that happen, and, even if, like a thousand monkeys writing Shakespeare, it technically can happen, why would you choose to go that route? If a great story is the goal, why would you leave that to chance, instead of ensuring that it happens?

A quick note about said division, from someone who read the actual market research study that produced this:

The divisions were not made arbitrarily. They were based on 8 places where the datapoints tended to cluster. (Kind of like how there is a wide spectrum of possible colors, but there is a certain band of them we refer to as being "green" even if it's got some blue or red mixed in.) The study never claims that all people fit neatly into one of the 8 boxes. Just that many do, and more often than not a box will account for most of your preference or a 50/50 splot between two. To reference my parenthetical comment, you can be a "Green" gamer who has some yellow or purple mixed in. But that's fine.

Oh, absolutely. But the problem is, to use your example, I am a Green anti-Green Yellow anti-Yellow Purple anti-Orange gamer. And I'm "meh" on the rest of the colors.

They have grouped into the same category things that are both essential and detrimental to my enjoyment of a game. If I only have those 8 sliders to define my gaming preferences, well, it won't be pretty.

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-13, 11:39 AM

OldTrees1

2017-10-13, 11:58 AM

Quertus

2017-10-13, 12:07 PM

That's starting to sound like the "totally planned or totally random" false dichotomy.

The people who play and enjoy story-focused RPGs or straight-up story games are engaged in collaborative storytelling, where they're engaged in creating the story as they go. It's not random, it's not monkeys banging on typewriters, it's a deliberate process.

It's really not my thing... but let's be fair and accurate in discussing it.

Oh, "fair and accurate" was decidedly not my goal. :smallwink:

EDIT: and you gave an even better answer than I was expecting, actually: if it's so bloody important, everyone should be working together to make it happen!

jayem

2017-10-13, 12:28 PM

So, to play devil's advocate for a while, how can that happen, and, even if, like a thousand monkeys writing Shakespeare, it technically can happen, why would you choose to go that route? If a great story is the goal, why would you leave that to chance, instead of ensuring that it happens?

Reversing the question.
If creating the great story was the sole goal, there are of course much better means of doing it. You can even get paid!!
If observing the great story was the sole goal, there are of course much easier means of doing it.

So if that were the sole goal/requirement why are you hosting/playing an RPG?
It could be because you can't characterize and you want someone else to do it for you (hopefully in a symbiotic relationship)
It could be because you want someone to listen to the story (again hopefully in a symbiotic relationship)

In either of these cases-and I think any I've not thought of. If their requirements are also purely story, then your probably heading into Am-Dram or a local inklings, none of you really want to game, why pretend. If their needs are not purely story they need taking into account, unless you are planning to be a parasite.

So let us assume that the DM either directly or indirectly (as part of his 'contract') wants something else. If satisfying these comes at the expense of the full control of the 'Plot', then that's a good reason to loosen control. Assuming that something else involve 'role-play' and 'game' then that means the players have some control of their characters and that consequences arise as a result of their actions, that decision is inevitable.
However it may be that the RPG version of snakes and ladders is possible. And it definitely may well be that everyone quite likes having a The Plot and wants to keep as much of it as possible (because plots after all are cool). In which case we have an explaination of why...

Now as to how... if you just want a generic plot that might involve attractors, repellors, loose fences (basically make it a simple game where at the appropriate level there is really only one choice). Making the game elements more simple as you make the plot more important and want people to follow it more narrowly (possibly making the plot more complex in exchange)

ImNotTrevor

2017-10-13, 01:13 PM

Oh, absolutely. But the problem is, to use your example, I am a Green anti-Green Yellow anti-Yellow Purple anti-Orange gamer. And I'm "meh" on the rest of the colors.

They have grouped into the same category things that are both essential and detrimental to my enjoyment of a game. If I only have those 8 sliders to define my gaming preferences, well, it won't be pretty.

The problem is that you for some reason think that the categories can only increase or decrease. Perhaps a better, though riskier for the forum, metaphor is political parties. To fictionalize,
Some people subscribe to the Pie Party, and others to the Cake Party. This does not mean that everyone in the Pie Party agrees with the party stance on Cheesecake, and not everyone in the Cake Party is as keen on Spatula Control as other members. But to describe them generally as a group is not incorrect.

kyoryu

2017-10-13, 01:22 PM

Segev

2017-10-13, 01:36 PM

You are not an anarchist, get the bleep outta here.

To be fair, there are likely anarchists who aren't ideologues about it, but rather want to see it happen because they think that, without laws, they can enforce their own through superior strength and brutality. Anarchy leads to tyranny, because with no rules, there's nothing preventing somebody from acting the tyrant.

Lorsa

2017-10-13, 01:39 PM

I always think of tags.

So the "Cake Party" might have a set of tags, and the "Pie Party" could have a different set. Any individual has a set of tags, and they'll align with the party that agrees with them the most. But they won't have some of the tags from one party, and might well have a bunch from the other as well.

So when I think about games, I think about needs/tags that the game takes care of. And we see that groups form up around collections of tags that seem to work well together, but the groups are really kind of secondary to the core things/tags themselves.

I thought that was the point with the engagements. They are the needs/tags that the game takes care of. The whole reason why you play.

After reading the engagement list, I can't really see any more that can't be fitted into this.

Obviously people can have more than one engagement, and some of them work well together wereas others don't.

But more than anything I like that it talks about why people play rather than trying to look at how they behave in the game and then try to categorise them from there.

Friv

2017-10-13, 01:51 PM

To be fair, there are likely anarchists who aren't ideologues about it, but rather want to see it happen because they think that, without laws, they can enforce their own through superior strength and brutality. Anarchy leads to tyranny, because with no rules, there's nothing preventing somebody from acting the tyrant.

On the flip side, I can see an actual anarchist getting pretty annoyed by the statement, "As an anarchist, I don't believe in human rights and think you should just kidnap people and torture them until someone has the information you need", since that's sort of the direct opposite of anarchism ideologically. Like, saying that this is something that anarchists would naturally support is pretty offensive to actual anarchists.

kyoryu

2017-10-13, 02:15 PM

I thought that was the point with the engagements. They are the needs/tags that the game takes care of. The whole reason why you play.

After reading the engagement list, I can't really see any more that can't be fitted into this.

Obviously people can have more than one engagement, and some of them work well together wereas others don't.

But more than anything I like that it talks about why people play rather than trying to look at how they behave in the game and then try to categorise them from there.

Agreed.

I was mostly countering the "party" analogy.

I think that those are the big needs, but I suspect there may be others as well. Even things like "I like weird dice" factor into what people play.

Segev

2017-10-13, 02:17 PM

On the flip side, I can see an actual anarchist getting pretty annoyed by the statement, "As an anarchist, I don't believe in human rights and think you should just kidnap people and torture them until someone has the information you need", since that's sort of the direct opposite of anarchism ideologically. Like, saying that this is something that anarchists would naturally support is pretty offensive to actual anarchists.

I'll take your word for it. This isn't a scoff that anarchists do believe that and I just don't want to argue about it; I really don't know. Anarchism, when I try to analyze it, always leads me to too many paradoxes for me to be able to discuss it coherently.

georgie_leech

2017-10-13, 03:25 PM

I'll take your word for it. This isn't a scoff that anarchists do believe that and I just don't want to argue about it; I really don't know. Anarchism, when I try to analyze it, always leads me to too many paradoxes for me to be able to discuss it coherently.

Rather fitting for an ideology characterised by a lack of central authority for governing ideals, I should think :smallbiggrin:

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-13, 03:36 PM

To be fair, there are likely anarchists who aren't ideologues about it, but rather want to see it happen because they think that, without laws, they can enforce their own through superior strength and brutality. Anarchy leads to tyranny, because with no rules, there's nothing preventing somebody from acting the tyrant.

This also fits in with DU's self-described attitude towards and treatment of other gamers.

On the flip side, I can see an actual anarchist getting pretty annoyed by the statement, "As an anarchist, I don't believe in human rights and think you should just kidnap people and torture them until someone has the information you need", since that's sort of the direct opposite of anarchism ideologically. Like, saying that this is something that anarchists would naturally support is pretty offensive to actual anarchists.

On the flip-flip side, petty tyranny also the near-inevitable real-world outcome when anarchy actually happens.

ImNotTrevor

2017-10-13, 03:50 PM

Agreed.

I was mostly countering the "party" analogy.

I think that those are the big needs, but I suspect there may be others as well. Even things like "I like weird dice" factor into what people play.

I don't think the statement "counters" the party analogy so much as clarifying what I'm talking about. The presence of clustering does not mean there are no points between the clusters.

If you roll 2d6 enough times and note that most rolls of 2d6 happen to be 5, 6, or 7, you are not saying results of 1-4 or 8-12 don't exist. (To supersimplify)

Those are places where clusters exist. You can be in a cluster, between, opposite from, take some from one and not the other, whatever. But the clusters still exist and it is a worthwhile practice to give them a shorthand name instead of "the cluster of people who answered the survey in some degree of variation from this particular pattern: 1. A, 2. D...."

Hence the parties thing. Yes, I believe cheesecake is a pie and believe that spatulas should be as wide as the baker wants to have them, and that mango frosting should be criminalized. This might not perfectly match the Pie Party, but well enough that I probably fall into that cluster. Now make it 8 parties and watch how complicated it gets then.

So yes, the tags are super helpful. And they also indicate tendencies. And it's ok to say "you fall generally into this sort of thing, so X might be a good option for you."

Segev

2017-10-13, 04:01 PM

Rather fitting for an ideology characterised by a lack of central authority for governing ideals, I should think :smallbiggrin:

Heh, perhaps. Though it's quite possible to have a lack of a central authority that still manages consistency. It does, however, take concession to there being authority, even if it's not inherently centralized. Or maybe I'm getting too philosophical, and forgetting that there's an ultimate governing authority of "the laws of nature." Everybody is affected by gravity, starvation, exposure, etc., and everybody who wants to drive a car has to find a source of fuel for it, etc.

georgie_leech

2017-10-13, 04:08 PM

It's also worth noting that how you engage the different aesthetics can differ from game to game. Like, I get a similar thrill of discovery when Dark Souls lets me piece together the lore of it's world, as when I tunnel into a new cavern in Minecraft or when I compulsively check every lootable thing in Skyrim and happen upon a potion.

Which is something that confuses me a little in your post Quertus. You mention liking Yellow and anti-Yellow, which I can grasp, but I don't quite understand how it maps to the aesthetics of play presented? Like, how does one have the opposite of discovery, or of expression?

kyoryu

2017-10-13, 05:03 PM

Which is something that confuses me a little in your post Quertus. You mention liking Yellow and anti-Yellow, which I can grasp, but I don't quite understand how it maps to the aesthetics of play presented? Like, how does one have the opposite of discovery, or of expression?

Sometimes I like steak. Sometimes I like sushi. Sometimes I like ice cream. I can appreciate them as separate things without thinking I should try to combine them.

Similarly, I enjoy 1e AD&D games, megadungeons, the whole thing. Make the best of what you get, try to survive, you against the harsh dungeon and if you're lucky, you live to see another day. Little or no plot, just the challenge of survival.

I also enjoy Fate games. Interesting characters, conflicts. A game that's not about survival or "winning", but is about seeing what happens and how the "story" develops. Entirely different things.

I can like both of them, even if they don't make sense to do at the same time.

Tinkerer

2017-10-13, 07:23 PM

Oh, absolutely. But the problem is, to use your example, I am a Green anti-Green Yellow anti-Yellow Purple anti-Orange gamer. And I'm "meh" on the rest of the colors.

They have grouped into the same category things that are both essential and detrimental to my enjoyment of a game. If I only have those 8 sliders to define my gaming preferences, well, it won't be pretty.

Which is to be expected. When you have strong opinions about a topic there are generally parts of that topic which you disagree with. I think a better example for kyoryu (and much less likely to cause strife) would be genres of music. I quite enjoy... well most types of music but to pick one for this metal. There are certain subgenres of metal which I strongly dislike however and my dislike for those are stronger than my opinions on a genre of music which I am ambivalent about.

Even things like "I like weird dice" factor into what people play.

Oh that's actually the very first thing from that list (Sensory Pleasure).

Quertus

2017-10-13, 11:03 PM

I like pizza. I like cheese on my pizza. Mozzarella, cheddar, feta, ricotta, and blue are among the cheeses that I've had on pizza. Even though, logically, they're all cheeses, one can easily imagine someone loving some but hating others.

Angry states that others divide / subdivide the 8 aesthetics. While he gets kudos both for his academic honesty, and for presenting the 8 aesthetics in the first place, he loses points for his dismissive attitude regarding the value of such subdivision.

That having been said, the political party analogy approaches the problem from a direction that I hadn't considered - namely, that one can, from a single descriptor, get a feel for whether an adventure will likely have elements you care about. I'm not sure to what extent that's the case.

We're playing a D&D murder mystery. Ok... That doesn't really answer how much die rolling there will be, or how prominently props will figure into the game. And, while there may be Exploration, it would likely be frustrating to those seeking a "normal" murder mystery.

The way I see it, what it does do is provide a framework to know what kind of questions to ask (promethian), and help understand what went wrong when your expectations have been violated (epimethian).

Or, when someone says that they're making a pizza with lots of cheese, you might be surprised and disappointed when you get white sauce and two huge globs of ricotta on a pizza crust.

EDIT:
Which is something that confuses me a little in your post Quertus. You mention liking Yellow and anti-Yellow, which I can grasp, but I don't quite understand how it maps to the aesthetics of play presented? Like, how does one have the opposite of discovery, or of expression?

Which is to be expected. When you have strong opinions about a topic there are generally parts of that topic which you disagree with. I think a better example for kyoryu (and much less likely to cause strife) would be genres of music. I quite enjoy... well most types of music but to pick one for this metal. There are certain subgenres of metal which I strongly dislike however and my dislike for those are stronger than my opinions on a genre of music which I am ambivalent about.

Oh that's actually the very first thing from that list (Sensory Pleasure).

Nailed it. Clustered together in the same aesthetic that are both things that I love, and things I hate. Whereas most (half?) of them, I'm just ambivalent about.

Lorsa

2017-10-14, 06:28 AM

Hard Fun is fun that is a challenge, is not easy, takes a lot of effort, and often contains lots of ''not fun parts''.

Sort of like having a murder mystery with no clear trail to follow, which may involve following leads that goes nowhere (that is, some mindless "******* around") until the mystery can be solved?

Estimated value: Two bits.

And this goes along with your ''player focus''. Why do only the players matter? Why would you say the DM does not matter?

Let's look at value in more detail. Whom does the various stories have value for?

The Story of the PCs obviously will have value for the players (I have never met a player that didn't find value in their own story), AS WELL AS for the DM (since they are part of shaping that story).

The Story of Background Setting or the Story of NPCs might have some value for the players, but it's not certain. It is quite possible they only have value for the DM.

Therefore, if the focus leans too heavily on the setting or NPC stories, the game has actually LOST in total sum of value, as they have less value for the players. That is, if those stories gets so much focus that they divert attention or detract from the PCs stories. This is why I said they only have value insofar that they are connected to the PCs story.

Basic utilitarianism gives us that it's best to focus on the PCs story as that has value for everyone at the table. With the notable exception if the players are also heavily engaged in the story of the NPC or whatever.

I'm not sure many games say ''this story is all about the PCs'', most are much more inclusive and say ''everyone''.

Many games don't say much in this department at all unfortunately. But, as I said, focusing on "the story of the PCs" IS the most inclusive way to play the game, as that makes sure everyone has creative input on the story, players and DM alike.

And it is true that, maybe, the players won't be able to contribute to a story that is not their own personal story, but why is that a bad thing?

You seem to think the reverse is bad; if you as DM won't be able to contribute (at least 75%? I dunno) to a story. So if you are upset about your lack to contribute, the same should be true for the players, right? That's basic empathy.

Well, murder mysteries are not for everyone. A murder mystery IS a lot of following breadcrumbs. And, assuming the DM wants the players, not the characters to solve the mystery for real it is a very, very, very hard delicate balance of ''giving the players information'' and ''letting them solve the mystery''(for real). It is not for everyone.

It doesn't HAVE to be following breadcrumbs. I've ran murder mysteries which were not.

Obviously they are not for everyone though. No game is for everyone.

Well, yes, DM's that create murder mysteries do this all the time. This is where the ''long, hard work'' of being a DM comes in. But really writing up a weeks history for a victim is pretty basic for a murder mystery. At least if that history has something to do with the plot. But sure and DM can make up random fluff to fill in any time.

Yeah. But the weeks history might not have anything to do with adventure or the plot. Still, the players might ask for it. So in that case, it is okay for the DM to improvise and you don't think it will create some sort of game-crash? What is the line between "random fluff" that is okay to improvise and "plot central" that is not okay to improvise (according to how I've interpreted your posts).

Only a crazy Dm, or the Second Life Type DM would make up all the details of a setting before play. A normal DM is just making up the details of the adventure.

Sure. But as said before, the players might want to explore options or routes outside of the adventure. What to do then?

Improvisation is hard to keep straight though and is very tricky. As I said, it is very easy to slip up on a detail or point or worse. And, sure, it works graet if you keep things very simple. If your ''mystery'' is a Scooby Do level mystery, then sure you can improvise up to 11.....and your player's will still have their characters catch ''Mr. McGee!"

And it only gets worse when you start talking about weeks or months of time.

Funny. I never thought improvisation was hard to keep straight. You can just as easily slip up on a detail during the pre-planning stage.

Um, I said plot? Plot. It is right there: plot.

Well. You said that a plot is the sequence of events in a story. Then you said the plot can only happen if the DM leads the players through it. The logical conclusion based on your own premise is that the a can't happen unless the DM leads the players through.

Group effort, yes. I wonder why you think ''only one person'' is Storytelling though? And I'd guess your thinking ''that one person'' is the DM? So that is wrong in your mind? But, oddly, if the ''one person'' is a player, you'd love that idea.

It's not wrong if that one person is the DM if they've been explicit that this is how the game will be before play.

If only one person is being in charge of the plot then only one person is doing the storytelling. The plot is the sequence of events in the story and if one person is solely responsible for it, then they are the storyteller by basic logic!

Storytelling, like just about everything in the game is a group effort. And sure it is not a fair split, the DM does like 75% of it and the players do 25%....but this is true about all most everything in the game. The DM does ''more'' then the players; this is basic.

I can see how that is true in your games. But as I said, it depends what story you are looking at. For the Story of the PCs, it is certainly possible ot have a game where the players do 50% of the storytelling (or more).

Except it is not? If the players have their characters ''turn left'' they don't alter reality make make a new plot.

If "left" makes the game have a different scene than the DM had planned, it DOES create a new plot. Like in the murder mystery, if the players decides to question witnesses instead of going directly to the Tavern, the plot (as the sequence of events in the story) is now changed.

Like say the DM makes a whole murder mystery plot full of details and put it in a location in the setting full of details. The PC's come along, go to the murder location and then utterly ignore al the DM's clues. Ok. Then the players are like ''we do X, do we find a clue?", and it is ''something the DM did not think of''. Ok. So, assuming the DM does not just say ''no clue found, try again", the DM just imprrovs a ''new'' clue.....to the murder mystery plot.

So the players can celebrate and high five...as they made a tiny ripple in a river.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at here. If the players do something which does not generate a "clue", that is STILL a clue isn't it? They'll get some type of information, even if it is the absence of a "clue". This means they know that whatever idea they currently have is wrong and can make progress.

Progress in solving a murder is not so simple as "we found a clue and now know where to go". It's a sum total of all clues and "not clues" that eventually points to the solution.

Sometimes though, the players will try something that the DM didn't think of which, even in the DM's mind, SHOULD generate a clue. In that case, what is the harm in improvising it?

I'm not a fan of ''triggered actions'' as they feel so weak and spineless....like the DM can ''only'' react when and if the players trigger it. It's like saying the DM can only act if the player wish it and let it happen.

No, it's not like saying that at all. It is like saying "the world is full of NPCs which will react according to what the players will do". If you insult the king he will send his guards after you. That is a triggered action, and NOT doing so might make the game hilariously whimsical (unless the king is known to accept insults to his person obviously).

Basically, anything a group or NPC does in response to what the players do is a triggered action. And you are saying you never use them? I wonder what your games look like in that case... no matter what they say to the king it generates the same result?

Yes, I do remember it well: 1992, on a Thursday, I was so caught off guard.... (And..my gosh, I had no Internet (and no, I'm not counting my CompuServe BBS as ''internet'' ever), no cell phone...and..and..and honest to gosh Music Videos were played on MTV(but not for too much longer...)

*sarcasm ignore mode on* See. Even you can be surprised!

Lorsa

2017-10-14, 06:40 AM

Nailed it. Clustered together in the same aesthetic that are both things that I love, and things I hate. Whereas most (half?) of them, I'm just ambivalent about.

What is clustered into the same aesthetic that you love or hate? I just don't see it. The aesthetics are not a list of "these are the things that trigger Discovery for all", but rather saying "the feeling of Discovery is one emotional engagement that drives people to play".

I mean, it is like comparing visual art over auditory art engagement. People who favor visual art might prefer to go to the museum whereas those with auditory might prefer a concert. That doesn't mean that an auditory person likes ALL music or that a visual person likes ALL art. Just that if they have a choice between "a museum with my favorite art" and "a concert with my favorite music", those who prefer visual will go to the museum whereas the auditory person prefers the concert.

It is quite obvious when looking at the aesthetics that for one which you like you will be much more sensitive to the quality that is brought to you. Like how a music-lover might absolute hate really bad music, whereas the painting-lover wouldn't really care much one way or the other.

If a core engagement which you seek is not being met properly, you will quite obviously hate the source of this frustration. Whereas for one which you don't care about, you will just be "meh".

And, as in your first example where there was one color you were just "anti", some things that falls under one aesthetic might actually be detrimental to another, so quite obviously you will be anti that-

I mean, I do like sensory pleasure in my games to some extent. I love having a pile of books next to me, real paper character sheets, nicely colored dice which I love rolling by myself. IF I loose these things I get a bit unhappy because my sensory pleasure isn't being tickled. However, on the flip-side, I don't much care for miniatures and battle maps, because they bring me out of my imagination and into the real world. So they interfere with my fantasy engagement (which is stronger than the sensory pleasure one).

Cluedrew

2017-10-14, 09:46 AM

I never said the players could not advance the plot, but the players can only do it in very, very, very limited ways. First a player only has control of a single character and is limited by what that single character can do in the game. Second, the player is limited by only having the single perspective of that single character and only knowing what that character sees, hears and knows.

For example: Set up: the character knows a firebug will strike once it gets dark, but does not know where in the town it will happen. So the player tries a dozen wacky things that all fail, but time runs out as the sunsets and they still don't know anything useful. A character sees a barn on fire. The player can then say ''oh, my character goes and puts out the fire''. But if a small fire is smoldering in a barn and slowly growing, there is no way for a character and player to know that...unless the character, by chance, was next to or inside that one barn at that exact time.You know, after a hunk of life getting in the way, I created a longer reply to this and then the site ate it. But when I came back to it I realized that there is more focused way of getting at my point:

What is they did some well thought out and workable plan to catch the firebug before the sunsets, then what?

Darth Ultron

2017-10-14, 12:35 PM

Basically, the GM pitch should be "I'm going to make a great story which you will play through. If you're looking for real agency, challenge or escapism you can go somewhere else. If you're looking for a great story, this is the place."

This sounds mostly good, but more like "I'm going to make a great story which you will play through. If you're looking for real agency, selfish ego boosting and a chance to live a Second Life you can go somewhere else. If you're looking for a great story, this is the place."

If a great story is the goal, why would you leave that to chance, instead of ensuring that it happens?

Well, I for one would not leave it to chance.

The Story of Background Setting or the Story of NPCs might have some value for the players, but it's not certain. It is quite possible they only have value for the DM.

Well, as the PC's are the Main Character Stars of the story, and a NPC is a Secondary Character/Guest Star and the 'background' only matters if it is in the 'foreground', the PC's have to be around (mostly) for the DM's stories. So this puts the players as parts of shaping DM's stories, and as such they have value.

Therefore, if the focus leans too heavily on the setting or NPC stories, the game has actually LOST in total sum of value, as they have less value for the players. That is, if those stories gets so much focus that they divert attention or detract from the PCs stories. This is why I said they only have value insofar that they are connected to the PCs story.

Odd, it is like your agreeing with me. Except for the part where your players are selfish, and mine are a bit more selfless and social.

You seem to think the reverse is bad; if you as DM won't be able to contribute (at least 75%? I dunno) to a story. So if you are upset about your lack to contribute, the same should be true for the players, right? That's basic empathy.

Except your comparing Apples and Oranges. It is true that the Players and the DM are not equal, this is very basic and even written into the game rules. But if a player wants ''more'' it is very simple: have them DM their own game.

Yeah. But the weeks history might not have anything to do with adventure or the plot. Still, the players might ask for it. So in that case, it is okay for the DM to improvise and you don't think it will create some sort of game-crash? What is the line between "random fluff" that is okay to improvise and "plot central" that is not okay to improvise (according to how I've interpreted your posts).

To improv a backstory is easy, it is the more active improv I'm talking about.

And I'm not saying it is ''not ok'' to improvise, I'm saying that it is hard and tricky and a lot of DM's will slip up. And it is bad enough for just role playing stuff, but it gets really hard when you add in the game rules.

Like say our Lazy improv DM is just sitting back with sunglasses on and at 6pm tells the players ''Box A is empty" when they search it. So the game rolls on and the DM improvs everything, and at 8pm has an NPC say ''Ha, the Secret Scroll is in box A''. Opps, DM just made a bad. If the scroll was there, why did the players not find it two hours ago? Is it because lazy improv DM did not think of it? Could lazy improv DM just not keep all the stuff he improved straight? Will he just tell the player ''sorry my bad" or will he try and railroad and cover his tracks "Um, the scroll was invisible'' just so the players could not find it...hehe."

The normal DM with notes can just look at the notes and never have such problems.

Sure. But as said before, the players might want to explore options or routes outside of the adventure. What to do then?

Well, as DM I'd tell the Jerk players to leave my house and that I never want to see them again, but that is just me.

I know it is ''way cool'' and ''popular'' for players to ''act like jerks'', but I hate the whole idea. It is really the players saying ''we don't want to play the game'', and my response is ''fine, then leave''.

Well. You said that a plot is the sequence of events in a story. Then you said the plot can only happen if the DM leads the players through it. The logical conclusion based on your own premise is that the a can't happen unless the DM leads the players through.

You keep mixing story and plot. Lets try a simple story: A night at a farm. Plot:the character must protect the farm.

So the character sits on a rock and watches. Then, suddenly the barn catches on fire! So the DM will advance the plot here and 'make' the character put out the fire and save the barn. You put forth the idea ''um, the character walks 2,000 miles and then sits under a tree and writes some poetry....um, did the fire at the burn go out yet?"

See the difference.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at here. If the players do something which does not generate a "clue", that is STILL a clue isn't it? They'll get some type of information, even if it is the absence of a "clue". This means they know that whatever idea they currently have is wrong and can make progress.

No? If the players get ''nothing'', even more so if it is really, really, really pointless nothing, it is just a huge waste of time. Like say there is a murder...and the players randomly head off and do something random, well then they are just wasting time. Like say the characters randomly break into a house for no reason and search the kitchen and don't find a bloody knife...then the players can say ''well, guess this person is not the bloody knife killer."

No, it's not like saying that at all. It is like saying "the world is full of NPCs which will react according to what the players will do". If you insult the king he will send his guards after you. That is a triggered action, and NOT doing so might make the game hilariously whimsical (unless the king is known to accept insults to his person obviously).

Sadly it is more saying ''I'm a weak cowardly DM that tries to blame everything on the players''.

Normal DM: "I do whatever I want, even ever I want"

Other DM: "I sit quietly in the corner and wait for the great players to trigger something in the game setting. Then I can go ''gothhca'' and act and do something. And should a hostile player say something I can defend my cowardly self and say ''It's not me doing this, your character did the trigger action. The, um, game logic or ghost or something is making me take the action against your characters. But it's not me, I'm a powerless pawn!"

What is they did some well thought out and workable plan to catch the firebug before the sunsets, then what?

Well, ok, now my Example A still stands as in my Example A I did state the characters did all kinds of stuff all day long and failed. So, ok, that is what happened, in example A.

So then there is your Example B, where the players follow the plot and catch the firebug. Ok, sounds like a good game.

Though keep in mind this example was also ''players can only effect the plot on a small, single character, personal level".

Lorsa

2017-10-15, 04:21 AM

Well, as the PC's are the Main Character Stars of the story, and a NPC is a Secondary Character/Guest Star and the 'background' only matters if it is in the 'foreground', the PC's have to be around (mostly) for the DM's stories. So this puts the players as parts of shaping DM's stories, and as such they have value.

Funny, it is almost like you are agreeing with me that the PCs are the most important (the main characters of the story) and that the other stuff only matters insofar as it intersects with the main characters?

Odd, it is like your agreeing with me. Except for the part where your players are selfish, and mine are a bit more selfless and social.

You're talking about stuff you have no clue about. My players are not selfish and I want you to apologize for insulting them.

Except your comparing Apples and Oranges. It is true that the Players and the DM are not equal, this is very basic and even written into the game rules. But if a player wants ''more'' it is very simple: have them DM their own game.

Because it's impossible to imagine that a player might have different levels of input or effect on the story? It is always fixed at 25%? And it is impossible to imagine that a player might want more than 25% of input but still be a player. The role of player and DM differ a lot more than "not being equal in amounts of story control".

To improv a backstory is easy, it is the more active improv I'm talking about.

And I'm not saying it is ''not ok'' to improvise, I'm saying that it is hard and tricky and a lot of DM's will slip up. And it is bad enough for just role playing stuff, but it gets really hard when you add in the game rules.

Like say our Lazy improv DM is just sitting back with sunglasses on and at 6pm tells the players ''Box A is empty" when they search it. So the game rolls on and the DM improvs everything, and at 8pm has an NPC say ''Ha, the Secret Scroll is in box A''. Opps, DM just made a bad. If the scroll was there, why did the players not find it two hours ago? Is it because lazy improv DM did not think of it? Could lazy improv DM just not keep all the stuff he improved straight? Will he just tell the player ''sorry my bad" or will he try and railroad and cover his tracks "Um, the scroll was invisible'' just so the players could not find it...hehe."

The normal DM with notes can just look at the notes and never have such problems.

I've gathered by now that improvisation must be difficult for you for some reason. Perhaps you've even encountered DMs that were bad at it.

My personal experience is that it is really not that hard to get right. The only downside is that it is more stressful during the game.

So I want you to recognize that it IS possible to improvise a lot of the adventure with great success. I mean, there are basically two options; either I am lying (and about a handful of other people on the forum with me) or you are wrong. Which is the most likely scenario?

Also, it is so impossible to write down stuff as you improvise them so you know what you said in the future. My god does that interfere with physics...

Well, as DM I'd tell the Jerk players to leave my house and that I never want to see them again, but that is just me.

I know it is ''way cool'' and ''popular'' for players to ''act like jerks'', but I hate the whole idea. It is really the players saying ''we don't want to play the game'', and my response is ''fine, then leave''.

So if you were running the murder mystery I mentioned before and left a clue that led to the tavern but I instead wanted to go door-to-door and look for witnesses (which you had planned none), you would think I was a jerk and throw me out?

You keep mixing story and plot. Lets try a simple story: A night at a farm. Plot:the character must protect the farm.

So the character sits on a rock and watches. Then, suddenly the barn catches on fire! So the DM will advance the plot here and 'make' the character put out the fire and save the barn. You put forth the idea ''um, the character walks 2,000 miles and then sits under a tree and writes some poetry....um, did the fire at the burn go out yet?"

See the difference.

Let's just examine two different approaches to this scenario. The players could try to look for the well and a bunch of buckets in an attempt to smother the flames. Alternatively, they could assume putting out the fire would be too difficult and instead run into the barn and save as many animals and valuables as possible.

Since these approaches are different, i means the sequence of the events in the story are different; therefore the plot is different.

See the difference?

But yeah, the players could ignore the fire and walk away. That's a choice they can make right?

No? If the players get ''nothing'', even more so if it is really, really, really pointless nothing, it is just a huge waste of time. Like say there is a murder...and the players randomly head off and do something random, well then they are just wasting time. Like say the characters randomly break into a house for no reason and search the kitchen and don't find a bloody knife...then the players can say ''well, guess this person is not the bloody knife killer."

Why assume the players do something random? More likely they'll do something that seems logical to them based on the information they have, but might not necessarily lead them to the solution. If they can scrap that idea (after they see it leads nowhere), they have to go back and find a new logical idea to follow.

Sadly it is more saying ''I'm a weak cowardly DM that tries to blame everything on the players''.

Normal DM: "I do whatever I want, even ever I want"

Other DM: "I sit quietly in the corner and wait for the great players to trigger something in the game setting. Then I can go ''gothhca'' and act and do something. And should a hostile player say something I can defend my cowardly self and say ''It's not me doing this, your character did the trigger action. The, um, game logic or ghost or something is making me take the action against your characters. But it's not me, I'm a powerless pawn!"

So now you've moved from insulting my players to insulting me? Why do you think this approach is good for a healthy discussion?

Cluedrew

2017-10-15, 05:28 PM

Funny, it is almost like you are agreeing with me that the PCs are the most important (the main characters of the story) and that the other stuff only matters insofar as it intersects with the main characters?If a tree falls off screen, does it make a sound?

Answer: Where the PCs close enough to hear it?

Yeah, that's it for today. Things have been hectic and I don't have time for a deep dive right now.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-15, 08:00 PM

Funny, it is almost like you are agreeing with me that the PCs are the most important (the main characters of the story) and that the other stuff only matters insofar as it intersects with the main characters?

Well, ''intersect'' is a bit too strong....it's more like the Dm's stories have to be ''on stage'' or ''near the PC spotlight'' to matter. But the Pcs/players don't ''have'' to do anything.

Because it's impossible to imagine that a player might have different levels of input or effect on the story? It is always fixed at 25%? And it is impossible to imagine that a player might want more than 25% of input but still be a player. The role of player and DM differ a lot more than "not being equal in amounts of story control".

Well, again, in any normal game a player only controls a single character. So a single character can only do so much. The DM controls everything in the game world, except the couple of PCs.....so it is not equal control at all.

And sure a player might want more control....that is the road to tyrant players and players that become side table DMs.

So I want you to recognize that it IS possible to improvise a lot of the adventure with great success. I mean, there are basically two options; either I am lying (and about a handful of other people on the forum with me) or you are wrong. Which is the most likely scenario?

"Everybody lies" -Dr. House.

I did admit it was possible posts ago, I just said it was easy to slip up.

So if you were running the murder mystery I mentioned before and left a clue that led to the tavern but I instead wanted to go door-to-door and look for witnesses (which you had planned none), you would think I was a jerk and throw me out?

Nah, realistically, you'd never get so far into the game as to start playing.

But say if you lied and misrepresented yourself just to play in my game, I'd still give you three strikes.

And it would depend on your ''knock idea''. If you wanted to knock and check the couple of other buildings nearby, then that would be fine. But if you wanted to like ''randomly knock on doors'' you'd run into one of my Big House Rules: Don't Waste Game Time.

(Though, really, if it were me I'd have the adventure ready before the game started and I'd never miss something like witnesses. For the murder I'd have a minute by minute timeline of who was were and what they saw around the time of the murder. This is part of pre planning and having a plot.)

Since these approaches are different, i means the sequence of the events in the story are different; therefore the plot is different.

Except the plot is ''protect the farm'', so the players either do that, or they don't.

But yeah, the players could ignore the fire and walk away. That's a choice they can make right?

Only theoretically. If the players make the walk away choice it is a jerk move and it is the players saying they don't want to play the game.

This is the big difference between the normal game and the second life game.

See for the casual player focused DM in the second life game ''anything goes''. That is no matter what the players do, on a whim, the DM will be like ''wow, amazing, brilliant, you guys are the best players ever!" After all the DM feels they are just there to support and cheer for the players...oh, and maybe adjudicate a ruling in their favor once in a while.

The normal classical game has the players agreeing to 1)Play the game, 2)Go on the Adventure and 3)Follow the Plot. And really this is not hard for most normal players as they will just call all three ''just playing the game''.

So before the game, or in the first couple minutes, the players will agree on an adventure plot to follow. If the players should be so flaky as to ''suddenly'' not like the game at some random time that they would just stop the game and say so, and not make a jerk move in the game.

Though it is also important to watch out for the problem players that will ''suddenly'' not like a game just as they encounter a problem. Such a problem player will ''suddenly'' have this problem in every single game..and that will be a huge problem.

So now you've moved from insulting my players to insulting me? Why do you think this approach is good for a healthy discussion?

I never insulted anyone. Maybe your just identifying with my example DM too much?

Cluedrew

2017-10-15, 08:32 PM

Idea: This is not actually what I was planning but it just occurred to me so why not try it:

To Darth Ultron: Sell me your game. Tell me why I should play in you game as opposed to some other game or reading a book. If you don't think you could peak my interest, do a pitch to a generic new role-player who does not have any particular preferences yet.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-16, 07:20 AM

To Darth Ultron: Sell me your game. Tell me why I should play in you game as opposed to some other game or reading a book. If you don't think you could peak my interest, do a pitch to a generic new role-player who does not have any particular preferences yet.

Sell you on my whole game, or just the Railroading bit?

Sell me on your Game sounds like a good idea for a thread. It would be amazing to watch so, so, so many people have exactly the same ''clone'' games. And so many people that will say words mean other things that there are all ready words for (like the players make and use characters, but Wacky DM Six will say their characters make and use ''turkey sandwiches'' that are exactly like character in every way, except they call them turkey sandwiches.). And people will post there game is all ''ABC'', and then someone like me will say ''well what about x''? and they will get all crazy and say ''oh sure my game has x too, I just did not say that in the 10,000 word post I made". And so on.

Selling you on a railroaded game is easy: as a player you'd never know.

Lorsa

2017-10-16, 08:07 AM

Well, again, in any normal game a player only controls a single character. So a single character can only do so much. The DM controls everything in the game world, except the couple of PCs.....so it is not equal control at all.

And sure a player might want more control....that is the road to tyrant players and players that become side table DMs.

In a normal game a player controls a single character yes, but that character's decisions alters what happens doesn't it? Like in your "barn on fire" adventure, if they try to douse the flames or remove the animals the game will be different (and the outcome as well).

The thing so many people in this thread have been opposed to is the idea that the DM should also control the characters that the players play, thus increasing their already substantial control.

"Everybody lies" -Dr. House.

I did admit it was possible posts ago, I just said it was easy to slip up.

"Easy" was not what was brought to my mind when I read your text. More like you thought it was "impossible" and the slip up was just about inevitable.

But alright. I'm glad you agree that it is possible to run a game with a lot of improvisation. That's progress for all.

Nah, realistically, you'd never get so far into the game as to start playing.

But say if you lied and misrepresented yourself just to play in my game, I'd still give you three strikes.

I wouldn't? You don't want to show me how much better games are when they are run the DU way?

And it would depend on your ''knock idea''. If you wanted to knock and check the couple of other buildings nearby, then that would be fine. But if you wanted to like ''randomly knock on doors'' you'd run into one of my Big House Rules: Don't Waste Game Time.

Guess what, I don't like to waste game time either. I have far too little of it these days (and I can only imagine the time diminishing in the future, role playing is a time consuming activity).

(Though, really, if it were me I'd have the adventure ready before the game started and I'd never miss something like witnesses. For the murder I'd have a minute by minute timeline of who was were and what they saw around the time of the murder. This is part of pre planning and having a plot.)

Yeah, I imagine most people would think of that. My example was meant to show a DM constructing a railroad with something they thought was a very obvious clue. For that kind of adventure design, some DMs think they don't need any more; I mean, the clue is there, what else do the characters need?

Except the plot is ''protect the farm'', so the players either do that, or they don't.

Uhm, I thought the story was "protect the farm", or possibly the adventure. The plot, as defined before, should be the sequence of events in the story. So if they trying to put out the fire or rescuing animals gives a sequence that is different from the other, does it not?

Like in one example; PCs see fire, PCs try to extinguish fire -> (DM determines the result) -> PCs celebrate with the farmer and his family (if successful)
Or in the other example; PCs see fire, PCs try to rescue animals -> (DM determines the result) -> PCs celebrate with the farmer and his family (if successful)

Two different sequences determined by the players.

Only theoretically. If the players make the walk away choice it is a jerk move and it is the players saying they don't want to play the game.

This is the big difference between the normal game and the second life game.

See for the casual player focused DM in the second life game ''anything goes''. That is no matter what the players do, on a whim, the DM will be like ''wow, amazing, brilliant, you guys are the best players ever!" After all the DM feels they are just there to support and cheer for the players...oh, and maybe adjudicate a ruling in their favor once in a while.

You know, this is a bit of an imaginary problem. I've very rarely seen the players saying NO to adventure and doing "whatever on a whim". A more common problem I've found is the one where the DM is more of a "jerk DM" and doesn't want to let the players do sensible things within the adventure, as it wasn't the exact same thing the DM envisioned. That, or designing horribly boring adventures.

Players WANT to go on adventure, or at the very least I do when I am a player, and basically all my players do as well.

Or, if you think this is really common, where did you find these annoying players that don't want to adventure?

The normal classical game has the players agreeing to 1)Play the game, 2)Go on the Adventure and 3)Follow the Plot. And really this is not hard for most normal players as they will just call all three ''just playing the game''.

So before the game, or in the first couple minutes, the players will agree on an adventure plot to follow. If the players should be so flaky as to ''suddenly'' not like the game at some random time that they would just stop the game and say so, and not make a jerk move in the game.

Though it is also important to watch out for the problem players that will ''suddenly'' not like a game just as they encounter a problem. Such a problem player will ''suddenly'' have this problem in every single game..and that will be a huge problem.

I think we're still unclear about what 3) Follow the Plot actually means. So far I found out that is is okay for me to question witnesses even if you imagined I'd go to the Tavern as per the clue. It also seems like you think it's okay to investigate a bit what the victim was up to that could have led to his early demise. Also, you think I can choose between putting out a fire with water or saving valuables in the building before it burns down. Is this correct?

If it is correct; why are these not different plots of the same adventure?

I never insulted anyone. Maybe your just identifying with my example DM too much?

Let's see. I said there was a possibility snooping about trying to solve a murder might make the perpetrators twitchy and if it seemed like the PCs was getting too close, they could attempt to take them out. Then you said this was a "coward DM" way. How should I interpret that as anything other than you calling me a coward?

Also, you DID insult my players, calling them selfish. Not that they care much for what some random person on the internet says, but I wonder what effect you thought it would have. Provoke me? Make me rethink my circle of friends?

Pleh

2017-10-16, 09:04 AM

Selling you on a railroaded game is easy: as a player you'd never know.

Until the player steps "out of line," that is. Then the buyer's remorse sets in.

Friv

2017-10-16, 12:07 PM

So now you've moved from insulting my players to insulting me? Why do you think this approach is good for a healthy discussion?

What in the last twenty-one pages would make you possibly believe that a healthy discussion is Darth Ultron's goal here?

Quertus

2017-10-16, 02:58 PM

You know, this is a bit of an imaginary problem. I've very rarely seen the players saying NO to adventure and doing "whatever on a whim". A more common problem I've found is the one where the DM is more of a "jerk DM" and doesn't want to let the players do sensible things within the adventure, as it wasn't the exact same thing the DM envisioned. That, or designing horribly boring adventures.

Players WANT to go on adventure, or at the very least I do when I am a player, and basically all my players do as well.

Or, if you think this is really common, where did you find these annoying players that don't want to adventure?

I'm not sure of I'm being fair, or just playing devil's advocate here, but, in groups of 10+ players, I have seen half the party balk at the GMs limited selection of plot hooks.

In these scenarios (yes, I have seen it many times), I place the fault firmly with the GM, for neither staying the hooks in their pitch, nor asking the players what their characters' motivations were beforehand.

ImNotTrevor

2017-10-16, 03:37 PM

I'm not sure of I'm being fair, or just playing devil's advocate here, but, in groups of 10+ players, I have seen half the party balk at the GMs limited selection of plot hooks.

In these scenarios (yes, I have seen it many times), I place the fault firmly with the GM, for neither staying the hooks in their pitch, nor asking the players what their characters' motivations were beforehand.

If you're playing with 10+ players, you're basically just begging to have a massive slew of problems.
You may as well steal a car, get drunk in it, and drive it into a police station lobby while listening to "Breaking the Law" by Judas Priest and wearing a shirt that says "cops suck!"
You'll have a roughly equivalent chance of keeping things going smoothly.

Cluedrew

2017-10-16, 05:01 PM

Sell you on my whole game, or just the Railroading bit?Whole thing, tell me what makes your game fun. Actually forget the "instead of part", just say what makes your game fun whether it is bog standard or almost unheard of.

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-16, 09:49 PM

If a tree falls off screen, does it make a sound?

In any setting I care to play in or read about or watch... yes.

Lorsa

2017-10-17, 01:31 AM

What in the last twenty-one pages would make you possibly believe that a healthy discussion is Darth Ultron's goal here?

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt?

I'm not sure of I'm being fair, or just playing devil's advocate here, but, in groups of 10+ players, I have seen half the party balk at the GMs limited selection of plot hooks.

In these scenarios (yes, I have seen it many times), I place the fault firmly with the GM, for neither staying the hooks in their pitch, nor asking the players what their characters' motivations were beforehand.

If you have 10+ players, it is even more important that you make sure they share the same motivations and really want to have the same types of adventure. Otherwise, you're going to end up making half feel uninspired.

Mordaedil

2017-10-17, 04:14 AM

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt?
There is a difference between giving people benefit of the doubt and just being very stubborn.

And really, it is just a contest of who is being more stubborn at this rate and it might just end up being a moderator that comes in and ends the conversation one way or the other.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-17, 07:27 AM

In a normal game a player controls a single character yes, but that character's decisions alters what happens doesn't it? Like in your "barn on fire" adventure, if they try to douse the flames or remove the animals the game will be different (and the outcome as well).

Yes, as I said, players do have a tiny bit of control. But just a tiny bit.

The thing so many people in this thread have been opposed to is the idea that the DM should also control the characters that the players play, thus increasing their already substantial control.

Yup, and I'm one of them. I never control a players character.

"Easy" was not what was brought to my mind when I read your text. More like you thought it was "impossible" and the slip up was just about inevitable.

But alright. I'm glad you agree that it is possible to run a game with a lot of improvisation. That's progress for all.

I know it's common for people to miss read what I typed.

I wouldn't? You don't want to show me how much better games are when they are run the DU way?

I know better then to waste my time trying. You like your way and only your way. It is not possible to change everyone's minds all the time, and I know and accept that.

Guess what, I don't like to waste game time either. I have far too little of it these days (and I can only imagine the time diminishing in the future, role playing is a time consuming activity).

Good, glad we agree.

Yeah, I imagine most people would think of that. My example was meant to show a DM constructing a railroad with something they thought was a very obvious clue. For that kind of adventure design, some DMs think they don't need any more; I mean, the clue is there, what else do the characters need?

Very often the players need a nudge or push.

Two different sequences determined by the players.

Except one is a failure.

1.The PC's see the barn on fire and put out the fire saving the barn and the whole farm.
2.The PC's see the barn on fire, do a ''wacky'' idea of ''save the animals''

Or, if you think this is really common, where did you find these annoying players that don't want to adventure?

It is way too common.

If it is correct; why are these not different plots of the same adventure?

Your kind of oddly seeing anything that happens as a plot, but that is not what a plot is: it is not just a single action. The Plot is: solve the murder mystery, if the characters say ''search a random closet'' that is not a plot and does not change the Plot. It is just a single (pointless) action.

Let's see. I said there was a possibility snooping about trying to solve a murder might make the perpetrators twitchy and if it seemed like the PCs was getting too close, they could attempt to take them out. Then you said this was a "coward DM" way. How should I interpret that as anything other than you calling me a coward?

Also, you DID insult my players, calling them selfish. Not that they care much for what some random person on the internet says, but I wonder what effect you thought it would have. Provoke me? Make me rethink my circle of friends?

I'm not talking about you or your players.

If you think something I typed is about you, you must be reading it wrong.

Whole thing, tell me what makes your game fun. Actually forget the "instead of part", just say what makes your game fun whether it is bog standard or almost unheard of.

Well, like I said, this would be more a whole thread: What Makes Your Game Fun?

Quertus

2017-10-17, 09:02 AM

If you're playing with 10+ players, you're basically just begging to have a massive slew of problems.
You may as well steal a car, get drunk in it, and drive it into a police station lobby while listening to "Breaking the Law" by Judas Priest and wearing a shirt that says "cops suck!"
You'll have a roughly equivalent chance of keeping things going smoothly.

If you have 10+ players, it is even more important that you make sure they share the same motivations and really want to have the same types of adventure. Otherwise, you're going to end up making half feel uninspired.

I mean, I've seen it in smaller groups, too, but "half the party" at a 4-person table is just 2 people.

And, yes, I've seen many groups have issues where the GM / the campaign didn't keep the characters inspired. Curiously, it was usually the same GMs who had trouble getting the PCs inspired in the first place.

Now, you can totally have parties of 10+ characters with different motivations, so long as you are making sure to periodically feed all of them. It's a lot of work*, but it can, IME, make for some of the best games.

* for most GMs. For a rate few, it just seems to come as naturally as breathing.

Segev

2017-10-17, 02:15 PM

Except one is a failure.

1.The PC's see the barn on fire and put out the fire saving the barn and the whole farm.
2.The PC's see the barn on fire, do a ''wacky'' idea of ''save the animals''

I find it telling that "Try to save the animals" is a "wacky" idea to you. "Wacky" is now revealed to be a code word for "Idea Darth Ultron didn't plan as the solution." It has nothing to do with reasonableness, except that anything but Darth Ultron's preset plot solution is obviously unreasonable.

Friv

2017-10-17, 02:39 PM

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt?

Me too, up to a point. But I admire your dedication - you are stronger than I am, and that is probably better for the world as a whole.

Except one is a failure.

Very true.

1.The PC's see the barn on fire and put out the fire saving the barn and the whole farm.
2.The PC's see the barn on fire, do a ''wacky'' idea of ''save the animals''

Oh, you think it's that one? No. It's the other one.

1. The PCs see the barn on fire, and make the wise decision to get the animals out of the barn, because animals are flammable and panicky. Once that's done they can work to restrain the fire. The barn is a lost cause.
2. The PCs see the barn on fire, do a "wacky" idea of trying to put the fire out while a bunch of panicking animals are inside, get trampled to death by cows, and then the fire spreads and kills everyone.

That's the thing about being a terrible GM. What you see as the only obvious decision is not what other people see, and when you make your dumb thing the only thing that works, players get frustrated, especially if they can't ask reasonable questions because you're known to make their knowledge not work. And then they complain that you're railroading them. Which leaves us at the start of this thread, with a terrible GM confused about why their players keep complaining about railroading.

Scripten

2017-10-17, 02:54 PM

Yup, and I'm one of them. I never control a players character.

Sure, you just make sure that their characters only have one choice of action at all times. Totally not the exact same thing.

Also, this is hilarious:

And the ''failure'' sure is a bad idea....this is what I'd call a Dull and Pointless game. The Players spend, say three weeks of real time trying to solve the mystery....and fail. So you as DM just sit back, put your feet on the table and say ''Oh well, you guys tried''? Failure is one thing...but for a DM to just sit back and watch the players fail slowly is just mean.

Except one is a failure.

1.The PC's see the barn on fire and put out the fire saving the barn and the whole farm.
2.The PC's see the barn on fire, do a ''wacky'' idea of ''save the animals''

dascarletm

2017-10-17, 03:16 PM

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-17, 03:22 PM

The thing about railroading is that the game is so much more fun when players do stuff that surprises you as the DM. It takes the campaign in new directions, and usually makes it better because they are living in the mess/glory that the players did themselves.

For example: I had the players infiltrating an elven airship in my recent sessions. I had planned that they would attempt to disable and crash it due to the overwhelming amount of crew on board, and barring that, they had contingencies to self-destroy the ship in-case of hostile takeover. They surprised me with how well they infiltrated and took out most of the crew unnoticed, and when the ship was destroying itself instead of abandoning ship, they decided to save it. They were clever, so I set them some difficult DCs. Now they are the only non-elves to have a flying ship. It is what makes their characters unique in the world, and now they have a whole nation that wants them dead.

Had I railroaded them in my example the game would be less interesting.

I like it when the PCs surprise me, IF the surprise makes sense in retrospect.

This does require one, as the GM, to be able to admit to one's self that the thing you didn't see coming is still sensible in the context and circumstances at hand.

If one lacks the humility and generosity of spirit to do that, then of "of course" anything that surprises you "makes no sense". http://cdn-frm-us.wargaming.net/4.5/style_emoticons/wot/Smile_sceptic.gif

Quertus

2017-10-17, 03:53 PM

I don't particularly enjoy running games. The only thing I like about being a GM is when the players surprise me with a clever idea. Which is part of why I rarely put much effort into thinking through how the PCs might solve a problem, but instead try to give them tools / problems to work with, and see what they come up with.

GreatKaiserNui

2017-10-17, 04:42 PM

I like it when the PCs surprise me, IF the surprise makes sense in retrospect.

This does require one, as the GM, to be able to admit to one's self that the thing you didn't see coming is still sensible in the context and circumstances at hand.

If one lacks the humility and generosity of spirit to do that, then of "of course" anything that surprises you "makes no sense". http://cdn-frm-us.wargaming.net/4.5/style_emoticons/wot/Smile_sceptic.gif

This is something I would like Darth Ultron try to rebuke, of course he'll just rant about how 'messy' that is and waste bytes on how much more 'classical' it is if nobody steps on his beautifully polished empty purposeless floor.

dascarletm

2017-10-17, 04:47 PM

Darth Ultron

2017-10-17, 04:59 PM

That's the thing about being a terrible GM. What you see as the only obvious decision is not what other people see, and when you make your dumb thing the only thing that works, players get frustrated, especially if they can't ask reasonable questions because you're known to make their knowledge not work. And then they complain that you're railroading them. Which leaves us at the start of this thread, with a terrible GM confused about why their players keep complaining about railroading.

Well, your terrible thing works with terrible players too.

Like in this example the job is: protect the whole farm. It is not just ''save the animals''. That is only what terrible players think.

Why is it so hard to just ''put out the fire'' and save the barn, everything in it...and the animals?

It is also the terrible player problem of ''thinking a barn catching on fire is like a massive explosion that knocks the planet out of orbit'' and not thinking ''oh so like a five foot square of the barn is burning.''.

For example: I had the players infiltrating an elven airship in my recent sessions. I had planned that they would attempt to disable and crash it due to the overwhelming amount of crew on board, and barring that, they had contingencies to self-destroy the ship in-case of hostile takeover. They surprised me with how well they infiltrated and took out most of the crew unnoticed, and when the ship was destroying itself instead of abandoning ship, they decided to save it. They were clever, so I set them some difficult DCs. Now they are the only non-elves to have a flying ship. It is what makes their characters unique in the world, and now they have a whole nation that wants them dead.

Had I railroaded them in my example the game would be less interesting.

I'm not sure how this is an anti railroad example as what would have been the railroad? Assuming the ''ship raid'' was a challenge, then they beat the challenge. You, the DM, either let them have the ship...or left it to chance.

Like would the ''railroad'' to you be ''not letting the characters take the ship''? Well, if in your game, ''flying elf ships'' are just ''like ships with a fly spell'' or whatever...then, ok, sure anyone can take control of one. Now in my game most flying elven ships are in fact living plants, shaped to look like ships. So unless the characters made some very, very, very detailed plans before hand, they are not getting an elven flying ship. They simply can't grab the helm, ''make a hard roll or two'' and then be like ''woo hoo the ship is ours!" But it is not railroading to have things set up that way, right?

OldTrees1

2017-10-17, 05:06 PM

Why do we care how Darth Ultron plays his games? If his players do not mind or enjoy the game, is that not acceptable. I do find that different groups tend to like different levels of railroading, in fact, I had to drop DMing for a group because they wanted me to be less-open world, and more railroaded. I just didn't find that as fun.

A)
By Darth Ultron's own testimony, he sees his players objecting to his game. He calls them problem players, kicks them out, and finds a new temporary player.

B)
We don't really care how Darth Ultron plays his games. We do care to have his posts surrounded by other posts that provide context and corrections for his misrepresentations and twistings of language. If he goes on a diatribe about railroading being necessary, it gets surrounded by posts providing counterexamples and other context. Thus the reader has more than enough context to reach an accurate conclusion in spite of Darth Ultron.

Friv

2017-10-17, 05:18 PM

Well, your terrible thing works with terrible players too.

Like in this example the job is: protect the whole farm. It is not just ''save the animals''. That is only what terrible players think.

You are so close, and yet so, so far.

The point is not "the players idea was the only good one". The point is that when the players hear your descriptions, they can't read your mind, and by automatically assuming that any plan other than the one that you've already settled on is wacky, you classify most good players as bad ones, chase them away from your table, and then are left with the people who couldn't run away and spend all your time complaining about your players.

Sound familiar?

jayem

2017-10-17, 05:53 PM

Well, your terrible thing works with terrible players too.
It is also the terrible player problem of ''thinking a barn catching on fire is like a massive explosion that knocks the planet out of orbit'' and not thinking ''oh so like a five foot square of the barn is burning.''.

That doesn't sound exactly like fire extinguisher time. Even ignoring how much it will grow in the time to get a bucket filled with water (a barn filled with small fine bits of fuel with a nice big surface area).

Confirmed
http://www.thehorse.com/articles/26893/barn-fire-prevention
" Causes of Barn Fires
There is an old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. However, with barn fires there almost never is a "cure." Once flames are spotted, it is usually too late. Only if a fire is discovered in the smoldering (burning without flame) stage--which can last a minute or hours--is there a chance to effectively put it out."

Or congrats, you killed the farm.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-17, 06:06 PM

A)
By Darth Ultron's own testimony, he sees his players objecting to his game. He calls them problem players, kicks them out, and finds a new temporary player.

I have no problems with ''objections''. If a player wants to ''object'' any time we are not playing the game they are free to do so.

B)
We don't really care how Darth Ultron plays his games. We do care to have his posts surrounded by other posts that provide context and corrections for his misrepresentations and twistings of language. If he goes on a diatribe about railroading being necessary, it gets surrounded by posts providing counterexamples and other context. Thus the reader has more than enough context to reach an accurate conclusion in spite of Darth Ultron.

It's like a public service. A shadowy flight into the dangerous world of a DM who does not exist. Me, a loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of gamers who operate obeying the rules. (I even have a black cat named Kitt (and a white one named Kat too(um and a brown and white one named Gizmo(and a brown and black one named Katniss (and two pit bulls: Dexter and Keyser Söze)).

The point is not "the players idea was the only good one". The point is that when the players hear your descriptions, they can't read your mind, and by automatically assuming that any plan other than the one that you've already settled on is wacky, you classify most good players as bad ones, chase them away from your table, and then are left with the people who couldn't run away and spend all your time complaining about your players.

Sound familiar?

No?

As a long winded DM, I give long descriptions with lots of details....specifically adding details I know problem players might make a problem about. I even use miniatures and pictures to show people how things are. But some people still won't get it.

Though the good players, the really good players, can take a couple seconds to ask a question to clear up something they are not sure of before they take any action in the game.

Like the group will have an encounter at a small stream in the woods that is five feet across and, at most, two inches deep. I will hand out color photos of this stream, aka Black Stream right down the street from my house that everyone had to drive on a bridge over to get to my house. Still, a player will be like ''I jump into the river and swim down thirty feet and hide!" as somehow when I say '' small stream in the woods'' they are thinking Mississippi river.

LordEntrails

2017-10-17, 06:29 PM

Darth, just go write a story. Because what you describe is not the cooperation that is where RPG adventures shine.

Sure, you can find players who are willing to go along with your "game" but it is a poor representation that has few of the benefits of role playing games.

Maybe if no one responds this thread will finally die?

Darth Ultron

2017-10-17, 07:06 PM

Darth, just go write a story. Because what you describe is not the cooperation that is where RPG adventures shine.

I do write a story and a plot and everything else. It is all what makes an adventure.

OldTrees1

2017-10-17, 08:02 PM

I do write a story and a plot and everything else. It is all what makes an adventure.

You omitted Player choice, as you always do, and as we always criticize you for overlooking &/or designing to exclude.

Quertus

2017-10-17, 09:00 PM

Like in this example the job is: protect the whole farm. It is not just ''save the animals''. That is only what terrible players think.

Why is it so hard to just ''put out the fire'' and save the barn, everything in it...and the animals?

It is also the terrible player problem of ''thinking a barn catching on fire is like a massive explosion that knocks the planet out of orbit'' and not thinking ''oh so like a five foot square of the barn is burning.''.

That doesn't sound exactly like fire extinguisher time. Even ignoring how much it will grow in the time to get a bucket filled with water (a barn filled with small fine bits of fuel with a nice big surface area).

Confirmed
http://www.thehorse.com/articles/26893/barn-fire-prevention
" Causes of Barn Fires
There is an old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. However, with barn fires there almost never is a "cure." Once flames are spotted, it is usually too late. Only if a fire is discovered in the smoldering (burning without flame) stage--which can last a minute or hours--is there a chance to effectively put it out."

Or congrats, you killed the farm.

The burning barn scenario, where the players give up on the barn and rescue the valuable animals, is a perfect example of the players understanding the situation better than the GM. Conventional wisdom says that this is not a salvageable situation.

I've played under GMs whose understanding of the world was decidedly sub-par. But, when they had a "huh?" moment to reality, they at least had the decency to allow our characters to retcon our actions to work in "Crazy GM World" physics.

But the players don't have to understand the situation better than the GM, they just need to understand it differently for this problem to arise. This can be because of misunderstanding physics on either side, or even the result of a miscommunication at some step. The above advice, of allowing players to retcon actions based on different comprehension of situational details or the underlying physics model, works well for any GM/party disconnect.

So, to tie that back into the main topic... if for some incomprehensible reason the plot absolutely requires that the PCs put out the fire in the barn, and the players are thoroughly convinced that this task is impossible, then the GM is going to have to do something to keep the adventure on the rails. Although I personally believe that the best answer is not to have such restrictive rails in the first place (especially when they might well require unrealistic actions), if you're dead set on going the rails route, the best rails are probably ones that you convince the players OOC makes sense for the world, so that they can roleplay characters that feel like they're part of that world.

EDIT: I've watched enough movies that, should I ever encounter a barn fire, while I'd likely stubbornly attempt to put out the flames (while screaming "fire" at the top of my lungs), I'd not be surprised in the slightest when my efforts failed. Burning hay and such isn't exactly a trivial problem, IM(l)E

Darth Ultron

2017-10-17, 09:35 PM

But the players don't have to understand the situation better than the GM, they just need to understand it differently for this problem to arise.

I just don't get why nearly everyone is like ''the DM should all ways cave in to the players''.

The DM sets up an event. Then a player says something, anything. And the DM is immediately like ''yup, whatever you say player."

I get that it makes the players like the DM more, and it makes the game easy for the DM.....but I don't think those are good reasons to do anything.

Scripten

2017-10-17, 10:14 PM

GreatKaiserNui

2017-10-17, 10:21 PM

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-17, 10:32 PM

I just don't get why nearly everyone is like ''the DM should all ways cave in to the players''.

Perhaps because it's a figment of your imagination, and the only time it's said is when you're falsely claiming that this mysterious Everyone is saying it.

Pleh

2017-10-17, 10:34 PM

I just don't get why nearly everyone is like ''the DM should all ways cave in to the players''.

The DM sets up an event. Then a player says something, anything. And the DM is immediately like ''yup, whatever you say player."

I get that it makes the players like the DM more, and it makes the game easy for the DM.....but I don't think those are good reasons to do anything.

It's all about the art of compromise.

It's not, "whatever you want, player." It's, "whatever you want within reason."

Of course, this requires a DM to actually be reasonable and accept that not all solutions fall under either "DM tyranny" or "player tyranny." You know, the idea that the game isn't about control, but cooperation.

There's this crazy alternative where players and DMs talk in the middle of the game about how the scene should go and they don't move forward until they come to an agreement that actually pleases all players sufficiently. No one just giving all power to the other, just friends working out a problem together to create solutions no one of them would have managed to create all on their own.

RazorChain

2017-10-17, 10:39 PM

To improv a backstory is easy, it is the more active improv I'm talking about.

And I'm not saying it is ''not ok'' to improvise, I'm saying that it is hard and tricky and a lot of DM's will slip up. And it is bad enough for just role playing stuff, but it gets really hard when you add in the game rules.

Like say our Lazy improv DM is just sitting back with sunglasses on and at 6pm tells the players ''Box A is empty" when they search it. So the game rolls on and the DM improvs everything, and at 8pm has an NPC say ''Ha, the Secret Scroll is in box A''. Opps, DM just made a bad. If the scroll was there, why did the players not find it two hours ago? Is it because lazy improv DM did not think of it? Could lazy improv DM just not keep all the stuff he improved straight? Will he just tell the player ''sorry my bad" or will he try and railroad and cover his tracks "Um, the scroll was invisible'' just so the players could not find it...hehe."

The normal DM with notes can just look at the notes and never have such problems.

Improv is not hard, I have run an improv campaigns lot of times. The magic is noting down information as you improvise, I mean names and such. If you can't remember the narrative in your own campaign or suffer from a memory leak then you should write more things down. The more complex the campaign becomes the more notekeeping is required, this does not hinder improvising, it just means that you can do your bookkeeping after the session.

I was a lazy improv GM at a point in my life but what you are describing is the drooling idiot GM. What do you do? Follow a script? You must be able to improvise a NPC dialogue durning play? All roleplay includes some form of improvisation....heck even the players improvise what their characters say or do. Not improvising means you are following a script.

RazorChain

2017-10-17, 10:47 PM

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt?

Why would you do such a stupid thing? Now I may be biased as an ex soldier working private security and doing a lot of risk analysis BUT giving some random stranger the benefit of the doubt is akin to trying to get rich playing slot machines.

GreatKaiserNui

2017-10-17, 10:56 PM

I was a lazy improv GM at a point in my life but what you are describing is the drooling idiot GM. What do you do? Follow a script? You must be able to improvise a NPC dialogue durning play? All roleplay includes some form of improvisation....heck even the players improvise what their characters say or do. Not improvising means you are following a script.

'drooling idiot' does not cut it.
DMing like Darth Ultron is a SIN.
Darth Ultron is WRONG.

jayem

2017-10-18, 01:13 AM

...
Like the group will have an encounter at a small stream in the woods that is five feet across and, at most, two inches deep. I will hand out color photos of this stream, aka Black Stream right down the street from my house that everyone had to drive on a bridge over to get to my house. Still, a player will be like ''I jump into the river and swim down thirty feet and hide!" as somehow when I say '' small stream in the woods'' they are thinking Mississippi river.

If there were no other context when it actually happened, then saying 'really?' would of course be fine. That said apart from 'swimming' that's more or less standard film action on being pursued on a small stream (walking, wading). It could be they were anticipating sarcastic comments if they said walked.

Even without having said so before, it's fine (but at that point you may need to be ready to undo any actions based on the wrong assumptions). However as it and railroading are (as you point out the other way) hard to distinguish, if you've used up your 'not what it looks like' budget (on cases when it actually was railroading), don't be surprised if it's a boy who cries wolf scenario.

If you'd planned it to be a wider river before that player choice, then of course that is railroading. If you'd actually made a ruling/implied that it was deep then it would be transparently and hideously so.

Mordaedil

2017-10-18, 01:14 AM

Improv is kinda the point of RPG's and really integral to the roleplaying aspect of the game.

Without it, you are just playing a really bad choose-your-own-adventure board game.

Quertus

2017-10-18, 04:58 AM

The burning barn scenario, where the players give up on the barn and rescue the valuable animals, is a perfect example of the players understanding the situation better than the GM. Conventional wisdom says that this is not a salvageable situation.

I've played under GMs whose understanding of the world was decidedly sub-par. But, when they had a "huh?" moment to reality, they at least had the decency to allow our characters to retcon our actions to work in "Crazy GM World" physics.

But the players don't have to understand the situation better than the GM, they just need to understand it differently for this problem to arise. This can be because of misunderstanding physics on either side, or even the result of a miscommunication at some step. The above advice, of allowing players to retcon actions based on different comprehension of situational details or the underlying physics model, works well for any GM/party disconnect.

So, to tie that back into the main topic... if for some incomprehensible reason the plot absolutely requires that the PCs put out the fire in the barn, and the players are thoroughly convinced that this task is impossible, then the GM is going to have to do something to keep the adventure on the rails. Although I personally believe that the best answer is not to have such restrictive rails in the first place (especially when they might well require unrealistic actions), if you're dead set on going the rails route, the best rails are probably ones that you convince the players OOC makes sense for the world, so that they can roleplay characters that feel like they're part of that world.

EDIT: I've watched enough movies that, should I ever encounter a barn fire, while I'd likely stubbornly attempt to put out the flames (while screaming "fire" at the top of my lungs), I'd not be surprised in the slightest when my efforts failed. Burning hay and such isn't exactly a trivial problem, IM(l)E

I just don't get why nearly everyone is like ''the DM should all ways cave in to the players''.

The DM sets up an event. Then a player says something, anything. And the DM is immediately like ''yup, whatever you say player."

I get that it makes the players like the DM more, and it makes the game easy for the DM.....but I don't think those are good reasons to do anything.

Ummm...

Me: the players should be ready and willing to cave to the DM's complete disconnect from reality, so long as the DM facilitates the process.

Darth: the DM should all ways cave in to the players.

Care to try again?

Lorsa

2017-10-18, 06:29 AM

I see we are back to single line responses now.

Yes, as I said, players do have a tiny bit of control. But just a tiny bit.

Yup, and I'm one of them. I never control a players character.

There seems to be some conflict between these two statements. You let players control their characters, but you don't let the character control what happens in the game more than a tiny bit?

In any case, even if you don't control a player's character, you sure seem to throw the player out of your game unless they control the character in a certain way that is determined as "right" by you.

I know it's common for people to miss read what I typed.

Then maybe work on expressing yourself more clearly?

I know better then to waste my time trying. You like your way and only your way. It is not possible to change everyone's minds all the time, and I know and accept that.

Some people are open to changing their own minds. It's really the only healthy way to live your life.

I might like my way; but I haven't seen all possible ways and I know there might be ways to run the game I could like more if I encountered them. For example, I am very skeptical of narrative meta-game currency. I do recognize though, that I might simply lack experience with how it should be used properly, and would like to play with a GM who is experienced in running games with these systems.

Good, glad we agree.

Hurray!

Very often the players need a nudge or push.

I think you missed my point here. Just because there is a clue at the murder scene, it isn't certain that the players will follow it directly. It is by no means "wacky" to first question witnesses or check out the history of the victim before exploring the clue. Some DMs though might only think in terms of their narrow railroad and thus be both surprised and horrified when the players don't immediately jump at their clue.

Since you said having witnesses prepared is part of what you do; that particular problem won't be an issue for you.

Except one is a failure.

1.The PC's see the barn on fire and put out the fire saving the barn and the whole farm.
2.The PC's see the barn on fire, do a ''wacky'' idea of ''save the animals''.

It's not a "wacky" idea at all. As some people have already said, putting out a fire in a barn is a bit of a fool's errand. Even with modern high-pressure water hoses, it will be difficult. With just a medieval type well and buckets of water, it is almost impossible.

The best you can do is to quickly rescue as much valuables as you can from inside the barn, before the fire gets too out of control, while at the same time putting out small fires in nearby grass if it tries to spread using water buckets and wet cloth. Any decent farmer will have the barn on a safe distance from the house, most likely surrounded by dirt or gravel for fire safety.

It is way too common.

I am sorry you get such odd players. Have you tried asking them what they DO want out of the game?

Your kind of oddly seeing anything that happens as a plot, but that is not what a plot is: it is not just a single action. The Plot is: solve the murder mystery, if the characters say ''search a random closet'' that is not a plot and does not change the Plot. It is just a single (pointless) action.

I am saying the plot is the sequence of events. Or seen another way, the sequence of scenes. The way I see it, the Story is "solve the murder mystery" whereas the plot is "the sequence of events that leads up to it being solved".

Yes, SOME actions are pointless for the plot, that is true. But we are not talking about those actions. We are talking about the ones that alter the sequence of scenes.

I'm not talking about you or your players.

If you think something I typed is about you, you must be reading it wrong.

So when you say "your players are selfish" you don't mean that my players are selfish, but what? Some other abstract "you"?

You quoted me, which means you are basically talking to ME and then typed "except your players are selfish". How is that NOT talking about my players?

I mean, I've seen it in smaller groups, too, but "half the party" at a 4-person table is just 2 people.

And, yes, I've seen many groups have issues where the GM / the campaign didn't keep the characters inspired. Curiously, it was usually the same GMs who had trouble getting the PCs inspired in the first place.

Now, you can totally have parties of 10+ characters with different motivations, so long as you are making sure to periodically feed all of them. It's a lot of work*, but it can, IME, make for some of the best games.

* for most GMs. For a rate few, it just seems to come as naturally as breathing.

Yes, it can happen for groups of any number (even groups as small as 2 players). I just said it is even more important to make sure that the players are on roughly the same page with a larger group.

But I don't think that's the biggest problem with groups of that size. With 10+ players, there will inevitably be a lot of waiting time and players not involved in what's going on at the moment. Some players handle that better than others.

It's not like 10+ players are impossible to handle, but it's more difficult for sure.

Me too, up to a point. But I admire your dedication - you are stronger than I am, and that is probably better for the world as a whole.

Well, thank you.

:smallredface:

Although I doubt it is always better for me. Like this discussion for example...

Why do we care how Darth Ultron plays his games? If his players do not mind or enjoy the game, is that not acceptable. I do find that different groups tend to like different levels of railroading, in fact, I had to drop DMing for a group because they wanted me to be less-open world, and more railroaded. I just didn't find that as fun.

We don't care how he plays his games. We do care a bit that he seems to be lying and misrepresenting his games to his players. We care a lot that he dismisses all other examples of games as "random" and tries to paint everything the DM does in the game as part of the term "railroading".

He can play whatever games he likes, that's for certain.

Why would you do such a stupid thing? Now I may be biased as an ex soldier working private security and doing a lot of risk analysis BUT giving some random stranger the benefit of the doubt is akin to trying to get rich playing slot machines.

Uh? You are saying the number of innocent people are proportionally equal to the chance of getting rich playing slot machines? I want to call a fact check to that statement. I seriously doubt more than 1 in 1000 in the general population is a "bad apple". As such, giving everyone the benefit of the doubt will be right in more cases than it's wrong. Doing the opposite however, and assuming guilt until proven otherwise will wrongfully judge more people than it will rightfully do.

So yeah, I think your bias is a bit too strong in this case.

But, in the case of Darth Ultron, I have made a couple of observations.

He seems to have an inability to admit when he is wrong, he seems to think everyone else is allied against him (just look at the lone crusader comment). He easily jumps to conclusions like "the players are jerks", or in similar ways blaming everyone but himself (people always misunderstand me vs. I'm sorry I didn't express myself clearly). Also, he seems to have an eerie love for his own reflection.

I think the conclusion isn't far away.

But despite all that, I still want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and a chance to prove me wrong. Because I really hope I am wrong.

Cluedrew

2017-10-18, 06:34 AM

Well, like I said, this would be more a whole thread: What Makes Your Game Fun?Every journey starts with a single step. Lets get a one paragraph overview of what makes your game fun. The elevator pitch for the games you run if you will.

Trying to stay clear and focused, like I said I would.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-18, 06:57 AM

No the idea is that the players do something then you as DM improvise what happens as a consequence of those actions.

Right. See in my view I make a tower with a front and back door and that is it. When Player X comes over and says ''we sneak in through the secret door!", I don't cave in and say ''wow, player you are right as all ways...there is a secret door into the tower!"

It's all about the art of compromise.

It's not, "whatever you want, player." It's, "whatever you want within reason."

The problem is ''within reason'' covers just about everything...so your saying the DM should cave in all the time.

And, ok, lets say it is about ''the art of compromise"? Why is it only one way? Why does ''compromise'' is a game mean ''whatever they players want with in reason''? Your (not) compromise has the DM giving up power and control...so what do the players give up?

Ummm...

Me: the players should be ready and willing to cave to the DM's complete disconnect from reality, so long as the DM facilitates the process.

Darth: the DM should all ways cave in to the players.

Care to try again?

I'm not getting what your saying here.

Lorsa

2017-10-18, 08:28 AM

Right. See in my view I make a tower with a front and back door and that is it. When Player X comes over and says ''we sneak in through the secret door!", I don't cave in and say ''wow, player you are right as all ways...there is a secret door into the tower!"

Do you honestly not understand what kind of improvisation GreatKaiserNui was talking about? You can say so it if that is the case.

The problem with your scenario is that if you describe a tower with a front and a back door and a player says "we sneak in through the secret door!", they are breaking the basic principle of the game. The basic premise is that the DM describes the situation and the players describe what they do within the situation.

So your counter-argument to "the DM should improvise based on the PCs actions" is "what if the players make a declaration that goes against the basic game principle?". That's a very poor argument and not at all what has been discussed. We are talking about improvisation based on actions that could possibly take place within the scenario.

This includes:
- Searching for a secret door.
- Knocking on the front door while in disguise.
- Using a pickaxe to try and break down the wall.
- Attempting to climb the wall using rope and a grappling hook.
- Digging a tunnel.
- Building a ladder or siege tower in order to reach a window (if there is one).
- Potential magic (or mundane) flight.
- Hiding next to the door until someone comes out and assault them / sneak in.

It does not include:
- Using a door that doesn't exist.
- Using equipment that was not on their list (although some groups simply use abstracted "adventurer's gear" to cover most things).
- Simply declaring "I am inside the tower" to the DM.

Pleh

2017-10-18, 09:02 AM

The problem is ''within reason'' covers just about everything...so your saying the DM should cave in all the time.

Precisely not that. "Within reason" could cover most anything, not always cover absolutely everything.

It's similar to the Schrodinger Wizard fallacy. People imagine wizards all powerful because of all the things that wizards could potentially do, but in reality, they really only have a fraction of their potential at any given moment. In the same way, players ought to have reasonable opportunity to get whatever they want (appropriate to their level), but they should expect some challenges preventing them getting everything they want.

And, ok, lets say it is about ''the art of compromise"? Why is it only one way? Why does ''compromise'' is a game mean ''whatever they players want with in reason''? Your (not) compromise has the DM giving up power and control...so what do the players give up?

It's not only one way. You only feel that way because you have a swollen sense of DM entitlement.

To start, before anyone is chosen as DM, all players are the same and have the same authority in the game. By allowing one player to take the role of DM, the other players have given this DM a tremendous share of their own authority in the game, submitting to the DM control over all aspects of the game save only for the microcosm of each player's own personal character.

This is what the players initially give: trust that the DM can help them profit by their investment of paying the DM in game moderating authority.

The DM starts play with a debt to the other players, because they have submitted their characters and ability to control what happens to their characters to the DM.

The DM owes it to these fellow players to see that they are satisfied with the returns on this investment. The DM is not entitled to just railroad the players: making meaningful choices with their characters is the only part of the game them players have left. The DM is obligated to honor this by reacting to their choices in a shrewd balance of positive and negative consequences that make the player feel empowered, challenged, and entertained.

And yes, the DM should feel these things as well, but they already have all the power in the game to do as they please and should have ample opportunity to get their kicks from that without dipping into the already limited play pool for the other players. If players making unexpected choices ruins the fun for the DM, then the DM just sucks at their job.

It's a compromise where the DM runs a restaurant. If the chef is dissatisfied with his/her own food, he/she can always just walk back to the kitchen and make whatever he/she pleases. The paying customers can't do the same. They can go back home to their own kitchens if dissatisfied, but they can't just walk back into the Chef's kitchen. If the customer goes home dissatisfies with the meal, it could be that customer's own fault, but it's the business owner's job to prevent this

Within reason.

Segev

2017-10-18, 10:27 AM

As a long winded DM, I give long descriptions with lots of details....specifically adding details I know problem players might make a problem about. I even use miniatures and pictures to show people how things are. But some people still won't get it.

Though the good players, the really good players, can take a couple seconds to ask a question to clear up something they are not sure of before they take any action in the game.

Like the group will have an encounter at a small stream in the woods that is five feet across and, at most, two inches deep. I will hand out color photos of this stream, aka Black Stream right down the street from my house that everyone had to drive on a bridge over to get to my house. Still, a player will be like ''I jump into the river and swim down thirty feet and hide!" as somehow when I say '' small stream in the woods'' they are thinking Mississippi river.When you've established that the stream is a couple inches deep and five feet across, reminding the player who says "I want to jump in and swim down it" of this fact isn't railroading.

In fact, you've not provided us, in this thread, information to detect any rails at all, here, because you've not posed an actual problem to the players as far as we can tell. It doesn't matter how they try to cross this stream - assuming they even want to - they're going to succeed unless something really weird happens.

Railroading as we're discussing it isn't forbidding the players' characters from taking silly actions. It's setting things up so that anything they do other than what the DM planned for qualifies as "silly."

For example: you decided that saving the animals from the burning barn was "wacky," but that putting out the fire was "sensible." And then proceeded to set up the situation so that this absolutely would be the case, using post-hoc additions to the scene in order to do so. You may as well have said, "I want the PCs to put out the fire; that is what they should do." You claim you don't take over their characters, but you all but do so by making it so that anything other than what you planned for them to do is silly, stupid, or "problem player" behavior.

I do write a story and a plot and everything else. It is all what makes an adventure.Why do you need players, again? Just take what you've written and write in the PCs as more characters. They won't spoil your plot then.

Quertus

2017-10-18, 10:29 AM

Yes, it can happen for groups of any number (even groups as small as 2 players). I just said it is even more important to make sure that the players are on roughly the same page with a larger group.

But I don't think that's the biggest problem with groups of that size. With 10+ players, there will inevitably be a lot of waiting time and players not involved in what's going on at the moment. Some players handle that better than others.

It's not like 10+ players are impossible to handle, but it's more difficult for sure.

It can be. Depends on the players, I suppose.

I seriously doubt more than 1 in 1000 in the general population is a "bad apple".

I'm... Lost? You clearly aren't vapid and clueless, so I am forced to conclude that either you are incredibly lucky, or that something in your nature brings out the best in people.

I'm not getting what your saying here.

Well, it is technically possible that I misread you, but I posted this:

The burning barn scenario, where the players give up on the barn and rescue the valuable animals, is a perfect example of the players understanding the situation better than the GM. Conventional wisdom says that this is not a salvageable situation.

I've played under GMs whose understanding of the world was decidedly sub-par. But, when they had a "huh?" moment to reality, they at least had the decency to allow our characters to retcon our actions to work in "Crazy GM World" physics.

But the players don't have to understand the situation better than the GM, they just need to understand it differently for this problem to arise. This can be because of misunderstanding physics on either side, or even the result of a miscommunication at some step. The above advice, of allowing players to retcon actions based on different comprehension of situational details or the underlying physics model, works well for any GM/party disconnect.

So, to tie that back into the main topic... if for some incomprehensible reason the plot absolutely requires that the PCs put out the fire in the barn, and the players are thoroughly convinced that this task is impossible, then the GM is going to have to do something to keep the adventure on the rails. Although I personally believe that the best answer is not to have such restrictive rails in the first place (especially when they might well require unrealistic actions), if you're dead set on going the rails route, the best rails are probably ones that you convince the players OOC makes sense for the world, so that they can roleplay characters that feel like they're part of that world.

EDIT: I've watched enough movies that, should I ever encounter a barn fire, while I'd likely stubbornly attempt to put out the flames (while screaming "fire" at the top of my lungs), I'd not be surprised in the slightest when my efforts failed. Burning hay and such isn't exactly a trivial problem, IM(l)E

Then you posted this in response:

I just don't get why nearly everyone is like ''the DM should all ways cave in to the players''.

The DM sets up an event. Then a player says something, anything. And the DM is immediately like ''yup, whatever you say player."

I get that it makes the players like the DM more, and it makes the game easy for the DM.....but I don't think those are good reasons to do anything.

Then I expressed my confusion at your response with my summary of the two posts:

Ummm...

Me: the players should be ready and willing to cave to the DM's complete disconnect from reality, so long as the DM facilitates the process.

Darth: the DM should all ways cave in to the players.

Care to try again?

So, I found it odd that, when discussing players caving to the GMs version of reality, you would discuss people talking about the GM caving to the players. I couldn't understand if you thought that was what I was saying, or if you thought that the two conversations were related in a way that I clearly do not understand.

So, care to explain where you were going with your comments?

dascarletm

2017-10-18, 11:07 AM

I'm not sure how this is an anti railroad example as what would have been the railroad? Assuming the ''ship raid'' was a challenge, then they beat the challenge. You, the DM, either let them have the ship...or left it to chance.

Like would the ''railroad'' to you be ''not letting the characters take the ship''? Well, if in your game, ''flying elf ships'' are just ''like ships with a fly spell'' or whatever...then, ok, sure anyone can take control of one. Now in my game most flying elven ships are in fact living plants, shaped to look like ships. So unless the characters made some very, very, very detailed plans before hand, they are not getting an elven flying ship. They simply can't grab the helm, ''make a hard roll or two'' and then be like ''woo hoo the ship is ours!" But it is not railroading to have things set up that way, right?

Not terribly important to the point but I'll put it in here since you mentioned it. In this game elves live in flying cities after a cataclysmic event made their land unlivable. They utilize a blend of magic/technology to build flying ships. They are powered by a magical substance that they know how to make. This substance is volatile, so to prevent other races from getting hands on their ship, they set fail-safes to blow up the ship should the ship be at risk of capture.

Allow me to explain more clearly why this is an anti-railroad example. Originally when I designing the campaign and the adventure as a part of that campaign, I didn't think they would try to stay and save the ship. I thought they would see them set the ship to blow-up, and would evacuate through the plethora of means I set up, or through some thought of their own. I didn't set a DC to stop the ship blowing up. In the grand scheme of the plot, it was an introduction to the high-elves as an enemy to the players. The rest of the "plot" of the game didn't involve them having the ship, and a significant portion didn't involve them dealing with the benefits and consequences of them having a unique flying magical ship.

At the point they decided to try and save the ship from destroying itself, I had a few options:
A: Tell them they can't save the ship and they should evacuate (Railroading).
B: Let them try and have them fail. They die. (Campaign Over)
C: Let them try and have them fail. They survive somehow. (Railroading)
D: Let them try and give them a chance to fail or succeed. (Most interesting option)

If I wanted to keep the "plot" I had in mind for the campaign, they wouldn't be able to get the ship through either unachievable DCs to save the ship or through divine intervention.
Maybe this example isn't the best because I should have foreseen them wanting to capture the ship in hind-sight.

If you have another example I'd be more than happy to demonstrate ways in which letting players take the campaign "off the rails" is more fun than keeping it on.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-18, 12:10 PM

So your counter-argument to "the DM should improvise based on the PCs actions" is "what if the players make a declaration that goes against the basic game principle?". That's a very poor argument and not at all what has been discussed. We are talking about improvisation based on actions that could possibly take place within the scenario.

Well, it kinda sounds like you might say ''no'' to the players then? And it does not seem like anyone is saying that. Even your own witness example is one where the players say ''we go find some witnesses'' and the DM has not made any for that crime. So the DM is like ''ok'' and improv's some witnesses on the spot just as the players want to do that. There was no hint, and you never said, the DM might say ''sorry there are no witnesses".

Railroading as we're discussing it isn't forbidding the players' characters from taking silly actions. It's setting things up so that anything they do other than what the DM planned for qualifies as "silly."

For example: you decided that saving the animals from the burning barn was "wacky," but that putting out the fire was "sensible." And then proceeded to set up the situation so that this absolutely would be the case, using post-hoc additions to the scene in order to do so. You may as well have said, "I want the PCs to put out the fire; that is what they should do." You claim you don't take over their characters, but you all but do so by making it so that anything other than what you planned for them to do is silly, stupid, or "problem player" behavior.

Why do you need players, again? Just take what you've written and write in the PCs as more characters. They won't spoil your plot then.

Well, remember the barn fire was just an example for the fact that a player can only see and effect the plot in a very, very, very small and limited way: thorough their character. It was not a railroad example.

So, care to explain where you were going with your comments?

I'm still kind of lost.... lets us try a better example.

Ok, as you admitted, you ''did not think'' the players would want a flying ship. And ok, that is fine. I will all ways assume by default that the player might want a powerful magic item they encounter and I will plan ahead for it. It is just two different styles of Dming and planning.

[QUOTE=dascarletm;22488871
If you have another example I'd be more than happy to demonstrate ways in which letting players take the campaign "off the rails" is more fun than keeping it on.

Well, ''fun'' is relative....and if your locked onto the idea that off the rails is automatically all ways more fun...it's a bit pointless. Unless you can admit that sometimes ''on the rails'' is as much fun AND MORE FUN then off the rails.

Friv

2017-10-18, 12:50 PM

dascarletm

2017-10-18, 01:04 PM

Ok, as you admitted, you ''did not think'' the players would want a flying ship. And ok, that is fine. I will all ways assume by default that the player might want a powerful magic item they encounter and I will plan ahead for it. It is just two different styles of Dming and planning.

Well, ''fun'' is relative....and if your locked onto the idea that off the rails is automatically all ways more fun...it's a bit pointless. Unless you can admit that sometimes ''on the rails'' is as much fun AND MORE FUN then off the rails.

Hindsight is 20/20, normally I can plan ahead, but sometimes you just don't think of things. It isn't particularly a different style of DMing, though perhaps it is. I try not to assume what they are going to do, and roll with the punches.

To the other stuff:
I'm not locked into thinking it is always more fun, nor have I expressed that opinion. I said that it could be more fun, and often times is. I'm not particularly sure what you constitute as railroading or not. In your opinion is a player making choices that divert the progression of the story in different ways bringing it off the road?

Quertus

2017-10-18, 02:37 PM

Well, ''fun'' is relative....and if your locked onto the idea that off the rails is automatically all ways more fun...it's a bit pointless. Unless you can admit that sometimes ''on the rails'' is as much fun AND MORE FUN then off the rails.

Well, see, I'm still not entirely sure what you mean by the term. But, when I tried to explain what railroading means to me, you said that was being a "Jerk Tyrant GM" or some such.

So, using my definition, no, I don't believe that a GM changing the scenario, reality and the rules to prevent a perfectly valid plan that doesn't happen to match their One True Way to go through the adventure has any chance whatsoever of being more fun than letting the adventure go off the rails.

Would anyone care to disagree?

Cluedrew

2017-10-18, 05:43 PM

To Darth Ultron: Would an example of "tell us what makes your game fun?" help?

For instance, the games in our group are fun because they have dynamic character adventures. So adventure is determined by the characters and their motivations, instead of the world moving around them. We also tend to have some very eclectic casts of characters which leads to personalities bouncing off each other.

GreatKaiserNui

2017-10-18, 06:21 PM

It's good that we are able to contain Darth Ultron's taint in this thread rather then the bad old days where he spawed his bile all over this forum.

Alcore

2017-10-18, 06:32 PM

Happy one-month anniversary, nightmare thread! One month ago today, this discussion began, and it continues happily.

I baked a cake in honour of how well things are going.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/17172/production/_84687549_@varrallini_hedgehog.jpg

Chocolate ooze! Dibs!

*swings warhammer at ooze*

Honestly i think it is going quite well. DU may not have changed any but the rest of us have shared ideas, gained XP and a few may have leveled! Someday DU may catch up but today looks grim.

Lorsa

2017-10-19, 08:30 AM

I'm... Lost? You clearly aren't vapid and clueless, so I am forced to conclude that either you are incredibly lucky, or that something in your nature brings out the best in people.

It could be a bit of both really. Another issue is that it depends on what you mean by "bad apple". In this example, we are talking about someone looking for a healthy online discussion or not.

Since most people in this forum are interested in a healthy discussion (similar on other forums I've visited), I've concluded that it would be erroneous to assume the reverse.

It's also possible that most of those "bad apples" have a tendency to congregate at particular places, and I'm very good at staying away from those. Like a swedish forum meant for parental and general life discussion. Staying far away from there is a good way to preserve your sanity and general faith in humanity.

Well, it kinda sounds like you might say ''no'' to the players then? And it does not seem like anyone is saying that. Even your own witness example is one where the players say ''we go find some witnesses'' and the DM has not made any for that crime. So the DM is like ''ok'' and improv's some witnesses on the spot just as the players want to do that. There was no hint, and you never said, the DM might say ''sorry there are no witnesses".

Of course I say "no" to players. All decent GMs say no from time to time, especially when players try to make action declarations that are impossible given fictional world.

My point was always that the players can say "we go look for witnesses", and if the DM judge it plausible for there to be witnesses, even if they didn't invent any before the game, then they can say "yes, you find some witnesses".

I mean, most often someone did see or hear something. Maybe not enough to solve the crime, but enough to be one piece of the puzzle. If there are really no witnesses, that's interesting as well, as it implies the perpetrator was very professional.

Obviously the DM can say "no" to the players. But, and here comes the big but, if they say "no" to everything, except that one particular solution they had thought of themselves, they are most likely (this is academic hedging for "definitely") railroading the players.

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-19, 08:39 AM

Of course I say "no" to players. All decent GMs say no from time to time, especially when players try to make action declarations that are impossible given fictional world.

My point was always that the players can say "we go look for witnesses", and if the DM judge it plausible for there to be witnesses, even if they didn't invent any before the game, then they can say "yes, you find some witnesses".

I mean, most often someone did see or hear something. Maybe not enough to solve the crime, but enough to be one piece of the puzzle. If there are really no witnesses, that's interesting as well, as it implies the perpetrator was very professional.

Obviously the DM can say "no" to the players. But, and here comes the big but, if they say "no" to everything, except that one particular solution they had thought of themselves, they are most likely (this is academic hedging for "definitely") railroading the players.

The question isn't whether a GM says "no" to the players.

The questions are why, and when, and how.

One of the major disconnects in these "discussions" is that one party keeps fixating on the misbegotten power dynamic of whether the GM can say "no", and asserting that the only viable answers are the false dichotomy of "yes the GM can say no to anything" or "no the GM cannot say no to anything".

kyoryu

2017-10-19, 11:12 AM

One of the major disconnects in these "discussions" is that one party keeps fixating on the misbegotten power dynamic of whether the GM can say "no", and asserting that the only viable answers are the false dichotomy of "yes the GM can say no to anything" or "no the GM cannot say no to anything".

Or, more specifically, "the GM must say no to everything that they didn't think up beforehand" or "no the GM cannot say no to anything."

LordEntrails

2017-10-19, 11:45 AM

Sorry Max and Kyroyu, this is an internet discussion. There are only two possible sides to any topic and only those that are truly opposed to each other. Anything else might indicate intelligence.:smalltongue:

Darth Ultron

2017-10-19, 12:19 PM

Well, see, I'm still not entirely sure what you mean by the term. But, when I tried to explain what railroading means to me, you said that was being a "Jerk Tyrant GM" or some such.

So, using my definition, no, I don't believe that a GM changing the scenario, reality and the rules to prevent a perfectly valid plan that doesn't happen to match their One True Way to go through the adventure has any chance whatsoever of being more fun than letting the adventure go off the rails.

Would anyone care to disagree?

It is because your coming at it with the view of ''railroading is negative and wrong'' , instead of ''railroading depends on how you use it''.

And, like many others, you are stuck on the absolute demand that at all times the players must be allowed to do (all most ) anything they wish to in the game play, and the DM must just sit back and after they say ''wow'', do whatever the players want.

To Darth Ultron: Would an example of "tell us what makes your game fun?" help?

For instance, the games in our group are fun because they have dynamic character adventures. So adventure is determined by the characters and their motivations, instead of the world moving around them. We also tend to have some very eclectic casts of characters which leads to personalities bouncing off each other.

Yea, I just need to do it a home so I can write a tamper proof example where someone can't just say ''oh, well just do x, then"

It's good that we are able to contain Darth Ultron's taint in this thread rather then the bad old days where he spawed his bile all over this forum.

I just wish some other people would post more and make a more vibrant web site.

The question isn't whether a GM says "no" to the players.

The questions are why, and when, and how.

I'd think ''when'' would be ''any time during the game'' and ''how'' would be ''they just say so''.

"Why" is the tricky one.

Take a typical bad guy lair: so lots of rooms including barracks, a dinning hall, kitchen, etc....with, the big bag guy ''in the middle'' . So this example is low level, so the PCs have only a little magic so they can't teleport, travel in time, cast wish spells or anything like that. Only a single character is sneaky, so the rest of the group can't really 'sneak around'. The bad guy has a simple ''detect evil'' policy of only letting evil folks in, so the group can't ''disguise themselves as tapestry inspectors'' and bluff their way in(and all ''unknown'' guests are striped down and chained automatically anyway, even if the are evil). So this leaves the somewhat obvious ''go through the front door approach''. And the players themselves are no fans of ''plan B'' of waiting for the bad guy to come out so they can jump them, as they want all the loot in the lair, and the most obvious way to get all the loot is to raid the lair.

So, of course, attacking the lair will be a big long fight. So the players want to search for a secret way into the lair, so....now the ''why''

1.If the DM has made the lair and everything about it ahead of time the DM can just look at the notes: If they had made a secret way, then the characters can try and find it. If the lair does not have one, then the lair does not have one. Everyone seems to be OK with this one.

2.If the DM has made the lair and everything about it ahead of time, and there is no secret way in, but the DM likes or ''thinks the players idea is reasonable'' they can simply add a secret way into the lair. Everyone loves this way.

3.If the DM has made the lair and everything about it ahead of time, and it does have a secret way in, but the DM knows that they and the players will have much for fun doing all the combat in the lair, so the DM changes what was written down before to ''no way''. It would seem everyone hates this one.

4.If the DM is more casual and has not made up much about the lair, but the DM likes or ''thinks the players idea is reasonable'' they can simply add a secret way into the lair. Everyone loves this way.

5.If the DM is more casual and has not made up much about the lair, but the DM knows that they and the players will have much for fun doing all the combat in the lair, so the DM says ''no way''. This seems to be hated too.

Of course, for the hated DM's of 3 and 5, you can put in ''any reason'' or ''DM whim".

But note how the only way no is ever ''ok'' is if it is ''in the notes'' before the game starts. Oddly while the DM can make up things in favor or for the players at any time...they can't say ''no'' at any time.

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-19, 12:21 PM

I'd think ''when'' would be ''any time during the game'' and ''how'' would be ''they just say so''.

And that's the problem in a nutshell, but thank you for stating it so plainly that it cannot be mistaken.

Friv

2017-10-19, 12:32 PM

I just wish some other people would post more and make a more vibrant web site.

Yes, truly, with barely over 17 Million Posts in the last ten years, this site is very quiet and sleepy. Why, that's barely 4,600 posts per day. A mere three posts per minute, every minute, for ten years.

OldTrees1

2017-10-19, 01:21 PM

So, of course, attacking the lair will be a big long fight. So the players want to search for a secret way into the lair, so....now the ''why''

1.If the DM has made the lair and everything about it ahead of time the DM can just look at the notes: If they had made a secret way, then the characters can try and find it. If the lair does not have one, then the lair does not have one. Everyone seems to be OK with this one.

2.If the DM has made the lair and everything about it ahead of time, and there is no secret way in, but the DM likes or ''thinks the players idea is reasonable'' they can simply add a secret way into the lair. Everyone loves this way.

3.If the DM has made the lair and everything about it ahead of time, and it does have a secret way in, but the DM knows that they and the players will have much for fun doing all the combat in the lair, so the DM changes what was written down before to ''no way''. It would seem everyone hates this one.

4.If the DM is more casual and has not made up much about the lair, but the DM likes or ''thinks the players idea is reasonable'' they can simply add a secret way into the lair. Everyone loves this way.

5.If the DM is more casual and has not made up much about the lair, but the DM knows that they and the players will have much for fun doing all the combat in the lair, so the DM says ''no way''. This seems to be hated too.

Of course, for the hated DM's of 3 and 5, you can put in ''any reason'' or ''DM whim".

But note how the only way no is ever ''ok'' is if it is ''in the notes'' before the game starts. Oddly while the DM can make up things in favor or for the players at any time...they can't say ''no'' at any time.

As always you are terribly blind with your examples. I will talk only about the "no"s to keep this short (albeit incomplete)
1) There is no secret way in, so the Players will not find one if they look. Ok.
3) The DM knows there is a secret way in, but they want to make the PC's choice for them. No, bad Darth, No.
5) The DM does not know if there is or is not a secret way in, but they want to make the PC's choice for them. No, bad Darth, No.
7) The DM does not know if there is or is not a secret way in, but because it is now relevant to the PC's choice the DM determines if there was or was not a secret way in. Ok
9) The DM knows there is no secret way because they intended there to only be one valid answer per PC choice. No, bad Darth, No.

Do you see the big difference between 1&7 vs 3,5&9? It is flashing in bright neon letters. If the DM said "No" because they intended to make the PC's choice for them, that is Railroading (which you call Jerk DM Railroading because you are a special snowflake that wants to abuse the miscommunication you intend to cause)

Thinker

2017-10-19, 01:52 PM

Darth Ultron

2017-10-19, 03:20 PM

Do you see the big difference between 1&7 vs 3,5&9? It is flashing in bright neon letters. If the DM said "No" because they intended to make the PC's choice for them, that is Railroading (which you call Jerk DM Railroading because you are a special snowflake that wants to abuse the miscommunication you intend to cause)

Well, your just running around in circles to say ''if the players like it'' = ''all ways good''.

As the DM controls everything in the game, does that ''count'' as ''making a choice'' for the players? And, again, why are the players put on such high pedestals as demi gods again? Why is it ''if a player says so, everyone must do it! All hail the tyrant players?"

What if the party doesn't find a secret passage, but uses magic to create a tunnel or to teleport into the lair? The players would miss all of the "fun" content!

As my example indicates, it is a low level group that can't do such things.

But even if they could it does bring up the important point, one that most people don't get: It's not the destination, it is the journey that is important.

Segev

2017-10-19, 03:34 PM

Well, your just running around in circles to say ''if the players like it'' = ''all ways good''. If the players and the DM both like it, is it bad?

As the DM controls everything in the game, does that ''count'' as ''making a choice'' for the players? And, again, why are the players put on such high pedestals as demi gods again? Why is it ''if a player says so, everyone must do it! All hail the tyrant players?"Nobody's said that except you when tilting at straw men for whom you're doing the silly voices.

When your motivation is, "I think/know the players will have more fun if I force them to do X," you're making a choice for them. This should be fairly obvious.

But even if they could it does bring up the important point, one that most people don't get: It's not the destination, it is the journey that is important.The journey, however, is whatever path you take to get there. Unless you're on a guided tour/watching a movie/reading a novel/attending a play, the journey is what you make of it.

If you're guiding a tour, writing a novel, producing a movie, or presenting a play, why do you need players, rather than just an audience?

You never did answer my question as to why you need players, rather than just putting 4-6 more characters into your pre-written plot to have them act out the roles you would otherwise compel players' characters into.

ImNotTrevor

2017-10-19, 03:47 PM

http://www.phase9.tv/wp-content/gallery/crocodile-hunter/03.jpg

G'day mates! Today we're going to be wrangling some logical fallacies! Oi, there's one right there!

Well, your just running around in circles to say ''if the players like it'' = ''all ways good''.
Crikey! Look at the size of this Strawman. He's a beautiful example of the species: He has absolutely nothing to do with the environment he finds himself in.

And if we look over here, we might find... aha!

As the DM controls everything in the game, does that ''count'' as ''making a choice'' for the players? And, again, why are the players put on such high pedestals as demi gods again? Why is it ''if a player says so, everyone must do it! All hail the tyrant players?"

Now I need to be careful with this one, they have a nasty temper. This here is a False Dichotomy. They're harmless, but they mimic the much deadlier Dichotomy, which is an unrelated but similarly beautiful animal.

As my example indicates, it is a low level group that can't do such things.

But even if they could it does bring up the important point, one that most people don't get: It's not the destination, it is the journey that is important.

Out here in this field, we find this. And while it may look like a regular goalpost, it is in fact a cleverly disguised animal called a Shifting Goalpost. Their main strategy for survival and hunting is to pretend to be one thing, and whenever their prey or a predator begins to make progress, the Shifting Goalpost suddenly changes forms.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1018333477794_2002/04/15/steveirwin.jpg
That's all for today, folks! Catch you next time!

Thinker

2017-10-19, 03:52 PM

As my example indicates, it is a low level group that can't do such things.

But even if they could it does bring up the important point, one that most people don't get: It's not the destination, it is the journey that is important.

The journey is important, but that's not really the point here. A journey is only interesting as a player if you can at least feel like your decisions have some ability to make an impact. From choosing to fire an arrow at the ogre instead of the necromancer to choosing to negotiate with the bandits instead of attacking them like the Lord hired them to do. It seems like you're overly-attached to the content you make as the GM. I get the feeling that you feel like if you make it the players must encounter it. That's a really bad way to GM.

OldTrees1

2017-10-19, 04:33 PM

Do you see the big difference between 1&7 vs 3,5&9? It is flashing in bright neon letters. If the DM said "No" because they intended to make the PC's choice for them, that is Railroading (which you call Jerk DM Railroading because you are a special snowflake that wants to abuse the miscommunication you intend to cause)

Well, your just running around in circles to say ''if the players like it'' = ''all ways good''.

As the DM controls everything in the game, does that ''count'' as ''making a choice'' for the players? And, again, why are the players put on such high pedestals as demi gods again? Why is it ''if a player says so, everyone must do it! All hail the tyrant players?"

I am saying "DM deciding to make the PC's choices for the PCs is railroading and that the difference between the positive and negative examples is whether the DM decided to make the PC's choices for the PCs."

(And everyone reading my post knows that is what I said. Nobody is going to believe your ridiculous strawman. Not even you are that illiterate.)

The DM controls everything in the game, but they don't have to make the PC's choices for the PCs. They can opt to design meaningful choices and let the Players react to those choices by having the Players choose the PC's choices for the PCs.

The DM designs the choices and the Players choose what the PCs do. It is not a case of Tyrant Player merely because the DM decided to allow the players to play the game rather than watch the novel.

Segev

2017-10-19, 04:51 PM

A novel is a railroad.

A well-written choose-your-own-adventure book is not, with meaningful choices determined by which page to which the reader turns affecting the course of the story.

A badly-written choose-your-own-adventure book is a disguised railroad, with meaningless choices where only guessing the right choice gets you anything but a dead-end to the story.

Quertus

2017-10-19, 07:35 PM

It is because your coming at it with the view of ''railroading is negative and wrong'' , instead of ''railroading depends on how you use it''.

And, like many others, you are stuck on the absolute demand that at all times the players must be allowed to do (all most ) anything they wish to in the game play, and the DM must just sit back and after they say ''wow'', do whatever the players want.

It's not because I'm viewing railroading as negative or wrong, it's because I'm defining railroading as "the GM changing reality, the rules, established facts, etc, in order to force a predetermined outcome". I'm defining it a) in a different way than you which b) is very similar to the standard usage of the word b1) on the Playground in particular, and b2) in the gaming community in general.

That having been said, you're absolutely right. The words I used in my previous post were clearly laced with my personal opinion of the practice, and not the more neutral definition I just gave above.

So I make my revised statement, I don't believe that a GM changing the scenario, reality, the rules, etc to force a predetermined outcome (aka railroading, "keeping the adventure on the rails") has any chance whatsoever of being more fun than maintaining the rules, reality, and predetermined facts (aka "letting the adventure go off the rails").

I again open the floor for anyone to either correct my assertions, or to disagree with my conclusion.

I'd think ''when'' would be ''any time during the game'' and ''how'' would be ''they just say so''.

You know, people are giving you a lot of flak about this response, but I'm not sure that I actually disagree at this step. Anything Most Anything that the GM can reasonably do, the scope of that power / the scope of it being reasonable is ''any time during the game''.

I'd think ''when'' would be ''any time during the game'' and ''how'' would be ''they just say so''.

"Why" is the tricky one.

Take a typical bad guy lair: so lots of rooms including barracks, a dinning hall, kitchen, etc....with, the big bag guy ''in the middle'' . So this example is low level, so the PCs have only a little magic so they can't teleport, travel in time, cast wish spells or anything like that. Only a single character is sneaky, so the rest of the group can't really 'sneak around'. The bad guy has a simple ''detect evil'' policy of only letting evil folks in, so the group can't ''disguise themselves as tapestry inspectors'' and bluff their way in(and all ''unknown'' guests are striped down and chained automatically anyway, even if the are evil). So this leaves the somewhat obvious ''go through the front door approach''. And the players themselves are no fans of ''plan B'' of waiting for the bad guy to come out so they can jump them, as they want all the loot in the lair, and the most obvious way to get all the loot is to raid the lair.

So, of course, attacking the lair will be a big long fight. So the players want to search for a secret way into the lair, so....now the ''why''

1.If the DM has made the lair and everything about it ahead of time the DM can just look at the notes: If they had made a secret way, then the characters can try and find it. If the lair does not have one, then the lair does not have one. Everyone seems to be OK with this one.

2.If the DM has made the lair and everything about it ahead of time, and there is no secret way in, but the DM likes or ''thinks the players idea is reasonable'' they can simply add a secret way into the lair. Everyone loves this way.

3.If the DM has made the lair and everything about it ahead of time, and it does have a secret way in, but the DM knows that they and the players will have much for fun doing all the combat in the lair, so the DM changes what was written down before to ''no way''. It would seem everyone hates this one.

4.If the DM is more casual and has not made up much about the lair, but the DM likes or ''thinks the players idea is reasonable'' they can simply add a secret way into the lair. Everyone loves this way.

5.If the DM is more casual and has not made up much about the lair, but the DM knows that they and the players will have much for fun doing all the combat in the lair, so the DM says ''no way''. This seems to be hated too.

Of course, for the hated DM's of 3 and 5, you can put in ''any reason'' or ''DM whim".

But note how the only way no is ever ''ok'' is if it is ''in the notes'' before the game starts. Oddly while the DM can make up things in favor or for the players at any time...they can't say ''no'' at any time.

And this is one of the things I love about these threads: I hadn't thought about some of that. Let me try again.

So, as GM, sometimes the players will ask about things that I haven't explained. Sometimes, I know the answer; sometimes, I've never consisted it. But, either way, it's cool. Sometimes, I rule in their favor; other times, what I tell them isn't favorable. But, either way, no-one accuses me of railroading - probably because it's pretty obvious I don't care how things turn out.

Other times, the players will assert things. Sometimes, I'll go with it; other times, I'll shoot them down (generally because it contradicts known (to me) facts about the campaign world). But, either way, I find it annoying.

But, the part I didn't realize, which I've already stated, is that I'll actually allow players to just assert things.

Aka-chan

2017-10-19, 09:34 PM

So I make my revised statement, I don't believe that a GM changing the scenario, reality, the rules, etc to force a predetermined outcome (aka railroading, "keeping the adventure on the rails") has any chance whatsoever of being more fun than maintaining the rules, reality, and predetermined facts (aka "letting the adventure go off the rails").

I again open the floor for anyone to either correct my assertions, or to disagree with my conclusion.

While I generally don't agree with a lot of what DU has said in this thread, I would take issue with the "any chance whatsoever" part of your statement. I can think of at least two instances from my own gaming history where letting an adventure go off the rails would have made things substantially less fun for the players.

Case #1 involves a fighter who'd just gotten access to Whirlwind Attack (which I think requires three feats as prerequisities? even for fighters who get umpteen bonus feats, that's gonna take a while) and was clearly looking forward to using it. Cue encounter where the fighter gets surrounded by a bunch of enemies. The resultant gleeful shout of "Quick Draw! WHIRLWIND ATTACK!" is fondly remembered by the group years later. Thing is, that "getting surrounded by a bunch of enemies" was the result of things going wrong. I have no idea whether there was any dice-fudging or other railroading involved...but if there was, it was the right choice, IMO. (And that's not even taking into account how hard it is to give a fighter the spotlight when the party includes a druid and a sorcerer.)

Case #2 has to do with a half-elven rogue who was left on the doorstep of an orphanage as an infant. In the basket with him was a signet ring. The symbol on the ring didn't match the heraldry of any noble house in the character's home city. Throughout the campaign, he gradually gathered clues to his heritage, and found out the full truth shortly before the game ended. If the party was getting ready to bypass an adventure that the GM knew would give the rogue one of these clues, should he allow that to happen? Or should he railroad/quantum ogre so that the rogue can get his clue? Does it matter whether it's been a long time since the last clue, and the GM doesn't want the rogue's player to think the GM has forgotten about the backstory he spent time and effort writing?

OldTrees1

2017-10-19, 09:51 PM

While I generally don't agree with a lot of what DU has said in this thread, I would take issue with the "any chance whatsoever" part of your statement. I can think of at least two instances from my own gaming history where letting an adventure go off the rails would have made things substantially less fun for the players.

Case #1 involves a fighter who'd just gotten access to Whirlwind Attack (which I think requires three feats as prerequisities? even for fighters who get umpteen bonus feats, that's gonna take a while) and was clearly looking forward to using it. Cue encounter where the fighter gets surrounded by a bunch of enemies. The resultant gleeful shout of "Quick Draw! WHIRLWIND ATTACK!" is fondly remembered by the group years later. Thing is, that "getting surrounded by a bunch of enemies" was the result of things going wrong. I have no idea whether there was any dice-fudging or other railroading involved...but if there was, it was the right choice, IMO. (And that's not even taking into account how hard it is to give a fighter the spotlight when the party includes a druid and a sorcerer.)

Case #2 has to do with a half-elven rogue who was left on the doorstep of an orphanage as an infant. In the basket with him was a signet ring. The symbol on the ring didn't match the heraldry of any noble house in the character's home city. Throughout the campaign, he gradually gathered clues to his heritage, and found out the full truth shortly before the game ended. If the party was getting ready to bypass an adventure that the GM knew would give the rogue one of these clues, should he allow that to happen? Or should he railroad/quantum ogre so that the rogue can get his clue? Does it matter whether it's been a long time since the last clue, and the GM doesn't want the rogue's player to think the GM has forgotten about the backstory he spent time and effort writing?

Case #1
Designing future encounters (be they optional or not) in a way that rewards the investments the characters made is a good idea (generally speaking). I think the important parts of this case are independent of whether or not it was railroaded to happen. A DM designing future encounters with the Fighter's whirlwind in mind would tend to make sure there was enough optional encounters that lended themselves to that scenario that eventually the Fighter would be rewarded.

Case 2:
The Rule of Three is a lesson about how to have player agency & have the mystery get solved without railroading. The DM would not need to Quantum Ogre a clue for the rogue to solve the mystery despite the missing clue.

I do hear what you are saying though. In a non DU thread I would go into the nuances of the topic.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-19, 10:21 PM

When your motivation is, "I think/know the players will have more fun if I force them to do X," you're making a choice for them. This should be fairly obvious.

Well, I say ''game fun'', for everyone: both the DM and players. Others are the ones saying it is ALL and ONLY about the players fun.

The journey, however, is whatever path you take to get there. Unless you're on a guided tour/watching a movie/reading a novel/attending a play, the journey is what you make of it.

If you're guiding a tour, writing a novel, producing a movie, or presenting a play, why do you need players, rather than just an audience?

Because it is fake...it is fiction. It is not real. Your ''journey'' way is fine in real life, but not a game.

You never did answer my question as to why you need players, rather than just putting 4-6 more characters into your pre-written plot to have them act out the roles you would otherwise compel players' characters into.

Well, you ''need'' players to play the game? It's sort of in the basic rules.

The journey is important, but that's not really the point here. A journey is only interesting as a player if you can at least feel like your decisions have some ability to make an impact. From choosing to fire an arrow at the ogre instead of the necromancer to choosing to negotiate with the bandits instead of attacking them like the Lord hired them to do. It seems like you're overly-attached to the content you make as the GM. I get the feeling that you feel like if you make it the players must encounter it. That's a really bad way to GM.

Notice how you shift ''the players must feel like they have impact'' immediately to ''the players must have ultimate freedom to do anything they want to do on a whim?"

This begs the question of why would such an arrogant selfish player even want to play in any game with a DM? If the player has control of the game, and the DM only does what the player tells them to do...why even have a DM? This type of player would be a lot better playing one of the ''no Dm'' rpgs.

Making things for the players to encounter is one of the big main jobs of a DM. It is even listed in the rules. And a planned prepared encounter will all ways be better then a ''quick improv mess' any day, even more so for complicated games with lots of details and rules.

It's not because I'm viewing railroading as negative or wrong, it's because I'm defining railroading as "the GM changing reality, the rules, established facts, etc, in order to force a predetermined outcome". I'm defining it a) in a different way than you which b) is very similar to the standard usage of the word b1) on the Playground in particular, and b2) in the gaming community in general.

But a DM can railroad without changing anything, so that makes that destination not all that useful.

On a whim a DM can pretty much have anything happen, and that is not changing anything. Sure the ''pro player side'' will say a Dm can't do ''anything'' and has to follow ''something'', but even if you add that pointless limit in name only...a DM can still do anything. Like:

1.Reality-Well the DM says what reality is, so this is not really changing anything here.
2.Rules-Well, I agree ''changing the rules'' like Jerk DM (''hehe all the monsters have Life Points, not Hit Points so the PC's can't hurt them as they can only damage hit points") is wrong. But again just by ''using the rules'' the DM can do anything, so again, this is not changing any rules.
3.Established Facts-Well, even in real life ''what is a fact''? The world is not a static place...what was a fact once upon a time might not be a fact today, and might not be a fact tomorrow. Facts do change...and even more so, what people think are facts change a lot. So, at best, the DM is changing what the players or characters know...but it is not like either knows everything.

So I make my revised statement, I don't believe that a GM changing the scenario, reality, the rules, etc to force a predetermined outcome (aka railroading, "keeping the adventure on the rails") has any chance whatsoever of being more fun than maintaining the rules, reality, and predetermined facts (aka "letting the adventure go off the rails").

I again open the floor for anyone to either correct my assertions, or to disagree with my conclusion.

See above.

Plus you are still stuck on the ''outcome'' too.

While it is possible to railroad an outcome, good DMs won't do it as there is another better option: To make it happen within the rules/reality/fact etc. If a DM wants a foe to escape, then that foe can have an escape plan ready..that fits within the game reality, rules, facts, and whatever else. The players might not like it, but all it has to be is possible and it is ok.

As I've said over and over, I'm talking more about railroading plot events. And even hear half of them can be done by just ''normal force'', but the rest that go ''beyond the rules'' requires railroading.

You know, people are giving you a lot of flak about this response, but I'm not sure that I actually disagree at this step. Anything Most Anything that the GM can reasonably do, the scope of that power / the scope of it being reasonable is ''any time during the game''.

I guess it just sounds bad to people or they don't want to admit the truth?

It is like saying ''a player can at any time have their character attempt to do anything there character is capable of doing in the game'' and then they would say players can't do that.....

Everyone is quick to jump on the wagon of ''lots of DMs are bad jerks'', but then they shy away from saying even the slightest hint that there might even be bad players.

And it's odd that people can't see that the DM can do things for the good of the game, but players mostly can't do that; either because they don't want too or they choose not to see that greater good.

A great example here is ''the bar fight''. A LOT of players have this wacky ''bar fight'' fantasy. So like the game starts, the characters see a tavern somewhere and the players immediately go for ''we run to the tavern and get drinks and start a bar fight!" But for most games, like D&D, a ''bar fight'' really is a huge waste of time, even if the players ''think'' it is fun to do. So(assuming the Dm plays along), the players take a whole hour of real time on ''the bar fight'' and defeat some low level commoners and a couple experts. And it does, sort of, feel ''cool and good'' for a second to cleave through five 1st level commoners...but it is a very false feeling of good, as you really did not do anything. At the end they get no XP(the fight was not a challenge) and no real loot(they get a small handful of copper and silver coins). THEN, and only then do the players realize what a waste of time it was doing ''the bar fight''. Yet somehow the players are either blinded by the idea that ''a bar fight'' will be the most awesome fight ever or somehow think the commoners in a tavern will be a challenge and they will somehow have a dragon's lair worth of loot.

So this is where the DM will make the move to railroad the players away from the ''bar fight waste'', for the over all good of the game. And, no, it is not worth it to waste an hour to ''teach the players a lesson'' about how wrong they are about the ''awesome bar fight."

(Note this would also be a good example of changing reality known as the Quantum Ogre. The ''normal farmer tavern'' would by ''game reality'' be filled with low level npc commoners with few weapons other then a dagger or a staff. For the DM to change the reality(''Quantum Ogre'') that EVERY farmer was a fighter 6(Dungeoncrasher/Zhentarim Soldier) with a +1 guisarme and +1 full plate(that is, um, hidden under their farmer clothing) as soon as the Pc's yell ''Bar Fight!'' is wrong.)

And note I'm not talking about *All* Bar Fights ever: just the pointless mundane ones. After all if the players *really* wanted to get into a *real challenging encounter bar fight* they could, they simply have to do it. And then not only would they fulfill their bar fight fantasy, but they would also get XP and loot. So it is like the choice of:

A)The Happy Harvest Tavern is full of a mix of human and halfling farmers having a drink after work. No one in the tavern is armed or is wearing armor and you see a group in the corner playing a card game for small stacks of copper coins.

B)The Bloody Axe is full of mean looking half orc thugs, just about all of them armed and in armor, most of it spiked and you see a pair of half orcs fighting on the main floor with axes, cutting into each other and spilling blood onto the all ready blood stained floor and you watch as some goblins take bets in handfuls of gold coins.

Mordaedil

2017-10-20, 01:19 AM

Well, I say ''game fun'', for everyone: both the DM and players. Others are the ones saying it is ALL and ONLY about the players fun.
People say this, because unless you are a big baby who only care about winning in every game you play, the players having fun is YOU having fun.

After every session we ask our DM "did you have fun?" and he always replies with "did you have fun? If so, then I had fun."

That is fundamental to playing D&D. Failure to adopt a mindset like this is a sign of immaturity.

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-20, 01:37 AM

Well, I say ''game fun'', for everyone: both the DM and players. Others are the ones saying it is ALL and ONLY about the players fun.

Which "others"? Who is saying that the GM shouldn't have fun?

(And then there's that recurring pernicious idea that "players" somehow doesn't include the GM...)

OldTrees1

2017-10-20, 01:41 AM

Darth Ultron

2017-10-20, 06:27 AM

Koo Rehtorb

2017-10-20, 06:31 AM

I agree it is ideal, but few Players think this way. The vast majority of players are only in the game for themselves. After all, things like Player Agency are only about the player.

Play with better people.

Or rather, become a better person and then play with better people.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-20, 06:33 AM

Play with better people.

Or rather, become a better person and then play with better people.

If only it was all ways possible to play only with good people. Still, I drive the bad ones away quick enough.

And as I'm a good person, I don't have any ''better'' to go...

Cluedrew

2017-10-20, 06:42 AM

Yea, I just need to do it a home so I can write a tamper proof example where someone can't just say ''oh, well just do x, then"Um... I'm talking about in the general sense, not in weird corner cases. Look at my example,
"For instance, the games in our group are fun because they have dynamic character adventures. So adventure is determined by the characters and their motivations, instead of the world moving around them. We also tend to have some very eclectic casts of characters which leads to personalities bouncing off each other."It is doesn't involve any particular examples, although I have several if you want them, of the interesting personalities in the party and how they drive themselves forward. Because that is one of the main things that makes our games fun. Its not only thing, there is the usual making jokes, epic moments and challenges. I didn't go for every detail, that would be a rather large essay, its just a summery.

G'day mates! Today we're going to be wrangling some logical fallacies! Oi, there's one right there!This is beautiful by the way. Thank you for bringing some joy to this thread.

On Having Fun: I agree with the whole "everyone should help everyone have fun model" and I have acted on it and have seen other players act on it as well. Best outcomes overall. I mean one of my best character moments old happened because another character went out of their way to provide a bonus to the roll of a second character for a skill that was to provide and attack bonus to my character. The resulting bonus might of made the difference between success and defeat for my character and it only happened because two people lent me their support, without me asking too. I try to pay it forward myself, but that is the single best example I got either direction.

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-20, 06:48 AM

Feel free to scroll back a page and look.

So nobody.

And obviously the DM is not a Player. Any game with a DM makes this very clear in the rules. Sure you can bend and twist words and say the DM is playing the game, but the DM is still not playing the game as a Player, they play the game as a DM.

They play the game, but they're not a player...

They play all the NPCs, but they're not a player...

The game is supposed to be as fun for them as anyone else at the table, but they're not a player...

:smallconfused:

Lorsa

2017-10-20, 07:13 AM

http://www.phase9.tv/wp-content/gallery/crocodile-hunter/03.jpg

G'day mates! Today we're going to be wrangling some logical fallacies! Oi, there's one right there!

Oh! Can we get more of this please!

Take a typical bad guy lair: so lots of rooms including barracks, a dinning hall, kitchen, etc....with, the big bag guy ''in the middle'' . So this example is low level, so the PCs have only a little magic so they can't teleport, travel in time, cast wish spells or anything like that. Only a single character is sneaky, so the rest of the group can't really 'sneak around'. The bad guy has a simple ''detect evil'' policy of only letting evil folks in, so the group can't ''disguise themselves as tapestry inspectors'' and bluff their way in(and all ''unknown'' guests are striped down and chained automatically anyway, even if the are evil). So this leaves the somewhat obvious ''go through the front door approach''. And the players themselves are no fans of ''plan B'' of waiting for the bad guy to come out so they can jump them, as they want all the loot in the lair, and the most obvious way to get all the loot is to raid the lair.

So, of course, attacking the lair will be a big long fight.

A great example of one of the most devious ways to railroad the players; create a railroad where the most obvious choice is the one the players will make. Limit all reasonable choices to just one and you make sure the players will always stay on the path.

Of course, the above is a very good example of a rather poor adventure design.

If you regularly run scenarios such as this, some players will get upset, as they get no actual real choice in the game. It may be the appearance of a choice, but it's not actually there. So these players will revolt against the restraints and eventually do "wacky" things that makes no sense, simply because they want to have A CHOICE in what to do.

Creating scenarios that are less of a railroad and more open and free will ensure that these players remain happy and won't do any "wacky" stuff.

But even if they could it does bring up the important point, one that most people don't get: It's not the destination, it is the journey that is important.

Oh we get it Believe me.

Do you?

A great example here is ''the bar fight''. A LOT of players have this wacky ''bar fight'' fantasy. So like the game starts, the characters see a tavern somewhere and the players immediately go for ''we run to the tavern and get drinks and start a bar fight!" But for most games, like D&D, a ''bar fight'' really is a huge waste of time, even if the players ''think'' it is fun to do. So(assuming the Dm plays along), the players take a whole hour of real time on ''the bar fight'' and defeat some low level commoners and a couple experts. And it does, sort of, feel ''cool and good'' for a second to cleave through five 1st level commoners...but it is a very false feeling of good, as you really did not do anything. At the end they get no XP(the fight was not a challenge) and no real loot(they get a small handful of copper and silver coins). THEN, and only then do the players realize what a waste of time it was doing ''the bar fight''. Yet somehow the players are either blinded by the idea that ''a bar fight'' will be the most awesome fight ever or somehow think the commoners in a tavern will be a challenge and they will somehow have a dragon's lair worth of loot.

So this is where the DM will make the move to railroad the players away from the ''bar fight waste'', for the over all good of the game. And, no, it is not worth it to waste an hour to ''teach the players a lesson'' about how wrong they are about the ''awesome bar fight."

You're quite presumptions in assuming that the players won't like a normal bar fight with random people. Maybe they don't care about the XP or loot from it but just want to feel superior?

A good DM would let them have their bar fights and try their best to make it interesting and engaging for the players. Even if they get no loot or XP, the DM would highlight that they accomplished to fulfill whatever desire that brought them into the bar fight. It's quite possible to take something "wacky" as a "boring bar fight" and turn it into something enjoyable.

It doesn't even have to last an hour...

I see the mature mindset is everyone has fun. Not your way of ''the only way the DM has fun, is the players having fun''. That makes no sense. Your way has the DM be just a slave to the players.

It makes perfect sense.

You can put it in reverse.

What does it say about the DM in the case of "the DM has fun but the players do not"? The only way the DM SHOULD have fun in the game is IF the players have fun.

HOWEVER, and now comes the important bit.

The players having fun isn't necessarily equivalent with the DM having fun. It IS possible to have a scenario wherein the players are having fun but the DM is not. That has happened to me on occasion.

What we are saying is that if the players are NOT having fun, nor should the DM. The DM should see it as BIG GIANT FAILURE and go home to rethink their skills.

The absolute BEST scenario is one where the players are having fun AND the DM is having fun. The second best is one where the players are having fun but the DM is not (as the players usually outnumber the DM). The worst option is obviously where no one is having fun...

SOME DMs are selfish jerks and only care about their own fun. Those are horrible DMs and generally bad people.

So to reiterate; if your players are not having fun, that's a big failure for you. And it's not the kind of failure you should be happy with.

And as I'm a good person, I don't have any ''better'' to go...

Ah. The Dunning–Kruger effect at its best.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-20, 07:59 AM

Um... I'm talking about in the general sense, not in weird corner cases.

Well, I know I won't get anywhere with ''a planned plot is all ways better then a random mess''. As everyone is so hostile to the ''p'' word. People won't even accept ''if you want something to happen YOU must make it happen''. The idea that just doing stuff randomly will make something happen is just dumb.

And I'm not saying you can't have fun with a casual improve game, but it's not the same ''type'' of fun as a complicated game with a plot. Both Checkers and Chess are fun games to play, but they are not the same ''type'' of fun. No one understands this (mostly as they would have to admit something bad about themselves).

And even when I give a small example of something and say ''the characters are low level and have little magic'', someone will say ''OK-day, why don't the characters teleport in and avoid the DM's dumb adventure?"

Of course, the above is a very good example of a rather poor adventure design.

Yea, as if your way is good. As you have said your causal way is to not even make stuff up. You'd just ''say the lair is over there''. Then you'd sit back and let your special players tell you want to do. And whatever they said, you would do. And the players will love you for caving into them. How is that a good game?

You're quite presumptions in assuming that the players won't like a normal bar fight with random people. Maybe they don't care about the XP or loot from it but just want to feel superior?

THIS is a perfect example of ''something not fun for a DM''. For a DM to sit there, for an hour, while the players ''bar fight'' JUST to stoke their egos and be jerks is WRONG. Sure, DM's like you are all for it and are like ''wow, you players are so great!".

And YOU would be the first one to whine and cry if you were a player in a game and a DM had anything even slightly ''unfun'' happen for even one minute....and amazing double standard.

And it's just down right AMAZING players like you ''can't'' get the ''Ego Boost'' playing the normal game...like if you defeat the Bandits of Bunglewood that is ''not'' as cool as beating up some commoners in a bar.

What does it say about the DM in the case of "the DM has fun but the players do not"? The only way the DM SHOULD have fun in the game is IF the players have fun.

Everyone, even you aggress that if the players are not having fun the DM should ''do something''.

AMAZINGLY though, if the DM is not having fun you as a player would be just be like ''aww too bad dumb DM'' and would do NOTHING.

And I'm the first one to say a DM should do anything, including railroading, to make sure the players have fun. But as far as you have said the only way the DM can have the players have fun is by being a slave to their whims .

Ah. The Dunning–Kruger effect at its best.

Like Diane Kruger? She is pretty.....

Lorsa

2017-10-20, 08:25 AM

Yea, as if your way is good. As you have said your causal way is to not even make stuff up. You'd just ''say the lair is over there''. Then you'd sit back and let your special players tell you want to do. And whatever they said, you would do. And the players will love you for caving into them. How is that a good game?

I've never said such a thing.

I've said I COULD run a completely improvised game if I wanted to.

But I rarely DO want to, as it doesn't give the best results.

I would make a lair with a map and details about the residents with stats and whatnot. I WOULD however try to make the adventure in such a way that there are multiple ways to defeat it. And if that is impossible for this particular lair, I would make sure the way it's attached to the campaign as a whole still gives a lot of freedom for the players to choose which way to go.

THIS is a perfect example of ''something not fun for a DM''. For a DM to sit there, for an hour, while the players ''bar fight'' JUST to stoke their egos and be jerks is WRONG. Sure, DM's like you are all for it and are like ''wow, you players are so great!".

If you don't want to play through a bar fight, just tell the players "hey guys, I don't want to do this scene because it isn't fun for me". Trying to railroad them instead is just unhealthy.

Trying to make a bar fight enjoyable for the players AND the DM is a challenge though. As a DM I generally like challenges, so I would try and do it, and if successful I'd feel pretty good about myself.

And YOU would be the first one to whine and cry if you were a player in a game and a DM had anything even slightly ''unfun'' happen for even one minute....and amazing double standard.

You have absolutely no ****ing clue what you are talking about, do you?

I have sat through a short campaign last 7 game sessions of ~4 hours which felt like a complete waste of time as the game was both boring AND railroady. I didn't whine or cry; I sat through it as I had promised to play those sessions and I take my social responsibilities very seriously.

I have played through TONS of games that had unfun things happening for the majority of the game.

And it's just down right AMAZING players like you ''can't'' get the ''Ego Boost'' playing the normal game...like if you defeat the Bandits of Bunglewood that is ''not'' as cool as beating up some commoners in a bar.

What are you ranting about now? Of course I want to defeat the Bandits of Bunglewood.

What I don't want, however, is to feel like the DM defeated the Bandits of Bunglewood and I was just there to roll some dice.

Everyone, even you aggress that if the players are not having fun the DM should ''do something''.

AMAZINGLY though, if the DM is not having fun you as a player would be just be like ''aww too bad dumb DM'' and would do NOTHING.

And I'm the first one to say a DM should do anything, including railroading, to make sure the players have fun. But as far as you have said the only way the DM can have the players have fun is by being a slave to their whims .

Again you have no idea what you are talking about.

As a player, I obviously want to make the game fun for everyone else as well. Hell, if I am in a situation, ANY situation with people, I want to make it as enjoyable to everyone else as possible. I absolutely hate it when people around me are annoyed, irritated, bored or angry. But that is beside the point.

As a DM you have one job and one job only. To make the game as enjoyable for your players as ****ing possible. That's it. If for some reason you don't like that process, those are not the right players for you and you need to find new ones. Your focus however, should always be on the players.

So, here is a question for you: If you think the DM should do anything to make sure the players have fun, but railroading is absolutely UNFUN, THEN what do you?

Like Diane Kruger? She is pretty.....

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bd/63/9a/bd639ace1d3e63d89b89fb6d83a6fc0d--of-the-galaxy-guardians-of-gahoole.jpg ?

Scripten

2017-10-20, 08:48 AM

I mean, we already know what DU does: He kicks out players that don't agree with him (both in and out of RPG context) and then is confused when the rest of the world isn't his Stockholm Syndrome echo chamber.

I have created a handy guide for participating in this, and other, threads:

-Nearly incoherent mess of strawmen, moving goalposts, insults, and a delightful smattering of random logical fallacies-

Response: That is not what the person DU is quoting said. That is also not what "everyone" is saying. This argument is made from a ridiculous, fantastical premise and exists simply to justify bad DMing practices.

*Proceed to respond to people having entertaining, enlightening discussions.*

Thinker

2017-10-20, 08:49 AM

Notice how you shift ''the players must feel like they have impact'' immediately to ''the players must have ultimate freedom to do anything they want to do on a whim?"

This begs the question of why would such an arrogant selfish player even want to play in any game with a DM? If the player has control of the game, and the DM only does what the player tells them to do...why even have a DM? This type of player would be a lot better playing one of the ''no Dm'' rpgs.

Making things for the players to encounter is one of the big main jobs of a DM. It is even listed in the rules. And a planned prepared encounter will all ways be better then a ''quick improv mess' any day, even more so for complicated games with lots of details and rules.

Notice how you're full of ****? Player agency includes the ability to interact in a reasonable way with the world around them. Let's look at my example again. The Lord hires the party to get rid of some bandits. The party accepts partial payment and goes out into the area where the outlaws are. The bandits are more or less a gang. Gangs don't attack everyone on sight and certainly not agents of the authorities in most cases. It's not unreasonable for the bandits to listen to what the party has to say or to agree to work with them. If this were a video game, sure, they'd attack on sight (one of the most unsatisfying features of the Elder Scrolls). The story has changed in a way that the GM didn't expect. Boohoo. Now the GM might have to change some encounters! The GM might not get to show off how clever he thinks he is with the super special death trap in Act 3! Big deal. If the GM can't decide how the bandits will react and come up with more scenes based on it, he's a bad GM. Off the top of my head, the bandits might begin plotting a coup involving the kidnapping of the Lord's son; they might enlist the party to help them fight a rival group of outlaws; they might test the party's loyalty with a raid on some farmers; they might double-cross the party and you get your big super special death trap anyway. It's not giving the players whatever they want; it's having the world react to their decisions. The GM gets to play every character, every weather event, and every scene in the game. If you're at a loss for how to handle the players doing something unexpected, you probably shouldn't be GMing or you should seriously be working at your craft.

The "arrogant" or "selfish" player isn't taking over the game. The player(s) is reacting to a scenario drawn up by the GM. That the GM is unable to react is an indictment on his ability. Maybe the player would be better off with a "no Dm rpg" than have a GM who has no idea what he's doing. Then again, maybe they're friends and they like hanging out together, exploring a story they're creating together, and having fun. Maybe we disagree because my friends and the players in my game are equals, rather than pawns in my self-indulgent, masturbatory fun-house I call a game.

What "rules" are you even talking about? Who are you even appealing to right now? We've been talking in a general way about RPG game play, not any specific game with a set code of rules. Looks like someone has decided to move the goalposts again. Let me guess, you're going to find a quote in one of the DMGs now? And what makes you assume that your craptastic prepared encounters where goblin #4 will just be clinging to life to reveal the entrance to the Hall of Doom than my improvised encounter where a brawl in the woods awakens an ancient spirit that is hellbent on revenge? You can also do a lot to reduce the skill required improvise. Map out likely locations of conflict; put together stats for likely foes and figure out what sort of gear they have; figure out where the clues are and who knows them; figure out the disposition and behavioral traits of NPCs the party is likely to encounter.

Wow! It's almost like I plan out a SITUATION instead of planning out a STORY. In my scenario above, the SITUATION is that the Lord wants the bandits gone and the bandits want to take over the region. What happens from there based on my input and the players input is the STORY. I don't know how the STORY ends and I don't want to know. It's the same reason I don't read the last chapter of the book when I first crack it open. I want to be surprised. I want PARTICIPANTS not SPECTATORS.

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-20, 09:24 AM

Segev

2017-10-20, 10:46 AM

Case #2 has to do with a half-elven rogue who was left on the doorstep of an orphanage as an infant. In the basket with him was a signet ring. The symbol on the ring didn't match the heraldry of any noble house in the character's home city. Throughout the campaign, he gradually gathered clues to his heritage, and found out the full truth shortly before the game ended. If the party was getting ready to bypass an adventure that the GM knew would give the rogue one of these clues, should he allow that to happen? Or should he railroad/quantum ogre so that the rogue can get his clue? Does it matter whether it's been a long time since the last clue, and the GM doesn't want the rogue's player to think the GM has forgotten about the backstory he spent time and effort writing?I think I addressed this earlier in a brief tangent on quantum ogres.

If the party is in a room with exits N, S, E, and W, and no way to really tell anything about them other than "they lead out different walls of this room," then it isn't diminishing their agency to have whichever door they take lead to the ogre. They had no way of predicting the ogre or its lack through any of the doors. Even if the DM did set up a dungeon such that the ogre was only through the E door, the players had no agency in choosing to face the ogre or not, because they had no way to know how to avoid it, nor how to seek it out, nor even to know it was there to avoid or be sought out.

Unless the quest the party was going to pass up was led to by the fact that it might lead the half-elf to more clues of his heritage, and they were making a conscious decision to bypass the half-elf's heritage clues in favor of something else, then it probably isn't a problem to quantum ogre the clues into whatever they DO do. It wouldn't have made any more or less sense to come across these clues in the bypassed quest than in whatever the party went on to do.

It's about agency, again. If they can't make an informed choice, then they lack agency in the consequences of their choices. Thus, they're unlikely to feel (more) cheated by the quantum ogre than they would about anything else.

The quantum ogre is a problem when the party can't avoid it even though they're trying to. If the party hears word of an ogre to the East, and so deliberately sets out West to avoid it, and encounter it anyway, they're going to feel railroaded. Their agency has been abrogated because their choices didn't matter.

Because it is fake...it is fiction. It is not real. Your ''journey'' way is fine in real life, but not a game.So...it's NOT about the journey in a game? You just said it was, now you're changing your tune.

Well, you ''need'' players to play the game? It's sort of in the basic rules. Is it? You could run the PCs yourself; you don't need other players to do so. You have the plot planned out, and other people running the PCs might do "wacky" things you have to force them out of in order to get them back into the serious plot that you have planned.

What do you actually need players for? You have the correct actions to solve each scenario planned out, and the consequences of solving it planned out. You don't dare let them fail, as they'd become "tyrant players" who whined and complained about how you're not being fair if you let them fail. So you force them along the railway to success.

It would be much easier if you played all the PCs, too. You could even eliminate the die rolling, and just determine how many rounds it takes to finish a fight by deciding who hits and who misses and for how much damage, if you wanted.

Your players' choices don't actually matter. Why bother having them?

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-20, 11:03 AM

So...it's NOT about the journey in a game? You just said it was, now you're changing your tune.

Is it? You could run the PCs yourself; you don't need other players to do so. You have the plot planned out, and other people running the PCs might do "wacky" things you have to force them out of in order to get them back into the serious plot that you have planned.

What do you actually need players for? You have the correct actions to solve each scenario planned out, and the consequences of solving it planned out. You don't dare let them fail, as they'd become "tyrant players" who whined and complained about how you're not being fair if you let them fail. So you force them along the railway to success.

It would be much easier if you played all the PCs, too. You could even eliminate the die rolling, and just determine how many rounds it takes to finish a fight by deciding who hits and who misses and for how much damage, if you wanted.

Your players' choices don't actually matter. Why bother having them?

And if your choices as a player don't matter... why bother playing?

If I want to be told a story of things I'm passively observing, past-tense, I have a backlog of novels I haven't read yet. I don't need to waste 4+ hours a week on a tinpot bully and wanna-be storyteller fig-leafing his halfarse "brilliant story" as an RPG.

If I'm setting out to tell a story, I'll crack open one of the WIPs and try to make some progress.

Segev

2017-10-20, 11:10 AM

And if your choices as a player don't matter... why bother playing?

If I want to be told a story of things I'm passively observing, past-tense, I have a backlog of novels I haven't read yet. I don't need to waste 4+ hours a week on a tinpot bully and wanna-be storyteller fig-leafing his halfarse "brilliant story" as an RPG.

If I'm setting out to tell a story, I'll crack open one of the WIPs and try to make some progress.

Oh, indeed. What I'm trying to get out of Darth Ultron is a reason why he needs players, rather than just writing a novel. He might get more enjoyment from the novel, and his audiences might be both wider-spread and more entertained, because novels don't bait-and-switch you on your own agency.

Thinker

2017-10-20, 11:58 AM

Oh, indeed. What I'm trying to get out of Darth Ultron is a reason why he needs players, rather than just writing a novel. He might get more enjoyment from the novel, and his audiences might be both wider-spread and more entertained, because novels don't bait-and-switch you on your own agency.

His novel would be so great. He wouldn't have any plot holes or contrivances or cliches. He would have to ban critics from reading his book who took away the wrong meanings or interpretations of the story. Only good readers would get it.

Friv

2017-10-20, 01:15 PM

Darth Ultron

2017-10-21, 01:44 AM

I've said I COULD run a completely improvised game if I wanted to.

But I rarely DO want to, as it doesn't give the best results.

I would make a lair with a map and details about the residents with stats and whatnot. I WOULD however try to make the adventure in such a way that there are multiple ways to defeat it. And if that is impossible for this particular lair, I would make sure the way it's attached to the campaign as a whole still gives a lot of freedom for the players to choose which way to go.

I do understand giving the players the illusion of choice.

If you don't want to play through a bar fight, just tell the players "hey guys, I don't want to do this scene because it isn't fun for me". Trying to railroad them instead is just unhealthy.

Sadly a great many players, let alone people are reasonable. Like tell a player you don't want to do a ''commoner bar fight'' and they spend the next six hours whining and complaing about it. But, amazingly, if the DM does even a tiny bit of good railroading ''oh sorry the bar is closed'', you know in that false way where the players ''agree with it'', then there is no problem.

Trying to make a bar fight enjoyable for the players AND the DM is a challenge though. As a DM I generally like challenges, so I would try and do it, and if successful I'd feel pretty good about myself.

Me too. But but the point here is the players are not looking for a good fight....they utterly just want to waste time.

What I don't want, however, is to feel like the DM defeated the Bandits of Bunglewood and I was just there to roll some dice.

That would be an odd feeling, and I'd wonder how and why you'd get it? Defeating the Bandits of Bunglewood is event A. So if character wants to Defeat the Bandits of Bunglewood they must do event A. It does not really matter ''how'' it is done, as long as it gets done. Though the setting, rules and abilities of the characters will limit the ''ways'' it can be done. If your character does not have the power to telekineticly grab the moon out of orbit and drop it on the bandits....then the character can't do that(so cross one way off the list). The bandits have a hideout at location X, so it is likely you might need to go to that location to defeat them, as that is where they are.

As a DM you have one job and one job only. To make the game as enjoyable for your players as ****ing possible. That's it. If for some reason you don't like that process, those are not the right players for you and you need to find new ones. Your focus however, should always be on the players.

Where do you get this ''one'' job? Even the rules of games with DM's don't say anything like that, and most list at least a couple jobs the DM does or has. You should be more clear that your ''one job'' idea is your own personal homebrew.

So, here is a question for you: If you think the DM should do anything to make sure the players have fun, but railroading is absolutely UNFUN, THEN what do you?

I'd never do anything UNFUN.

Let's look at my example again.

But your example is ''whatever the players do alters reality''. Sure, it is possible your way might happen, lets say it is way A. But it is not the only way. After all, way B is simply ''way A does not work. And so on.

And here is the big problem everyone seems to have:

*Everything a player wishes to happen on a whim must be possible, changing the game reality if needed, and must always succeed and have the outcome the player wants.

*Anything the DM does ever is wrong, unless they do what the players want, that has the outcome the players want.

Hilariously, everyone is saying they agree and approve of the idea that the players ''must'' Railroad the DM.

Just look at your example of the ''gang'':

*Players randomly say ''wez sneak into the gang" and the DM automatically must cave in and say ''wow, players your plan works the gang lets you join them!'' You say this is the only way the game must be played and that it was the ''best game ever!''.

*Players randomly say ''wez sneak into the gang" and the DM, quite reasonable says ''Um, the gang does not fall for your stupid idea". You'd scream railroad and all sorts of bad things.

What "rules" are you even talking about? Who are you even appealing to right now? We've been talking in a general way about RPG game play, not any specific game with a set code of rules. Looks like someone has decided to move the goalposts again.

Rules in general....every games has rules.

So...it's NOT about the journey in a game? You just said it was, now you're changing your tune.

The journey in a game is not the same as a real life journey. Games are fiction, real life is real.

What do you actually need players for? You have the correct actions to solve each scenario planned out, and the consequences of solving it planned out. You don't dare let them fail, as they'd become "tyrant players" who whined and complained about how you're not being fair if you let them fail. So you force them along the railway to success.

I'm a Killer DM, I let players fail all the time.

Your players' choices don't actually matter. Why bother having them?

I agree that it is better to simply not give the players choices....lol.

I really don't get the idea that the only way to play the game is to have the Players Railroad the game against the DM.

OldTrees1

2017-10-21, 02:00 AM

I do understand giving the players the illusion of choice.

I'd never do anything UNFUN.

I agree that it is better to simply not give the players choices....lol.

Another set of Darth Ultron quotes displaying in crystal clarity why Darth Ultron is a terrible DM.

Darth Ultron, since you strongly believe in not allowing the Players to play the game, why do you conspire to dupe them into watching you play with yourself? How awfully dull and UNFUN.

Lorsa

2017-10-21, 04:07 AM

Hey, Lorsa!

I just want to congratulate you for being only the second person in this thread to pierce Darth Ultron's smug blind superiority enough for him to start directly insulting you. Obviously, your method of politely pointing out all of his inconsistencies worked, because he has nothing left to latch onto but an endless font of bile.

Good job!

Thank you!

I do understand giving the players the illusion of choice.

What if your players want an actual choice though? Shouldn't you tailor make the game for them and giving them real choices instead?

Sadly a great many players, let alone people are reasonable. Like tell a player you don't want to do a ''commoner bar fight'' and they spend the next six hours whining and complaing about it. But, amazingly, if the DM does even a tiny bit of good railroading ''oh sorry the bar is closed'', you know in that false way where the players ''agree with it'', then there is no problem.

I only play with, and hang out with, reasonable people. The only time I spend time on unreasonable people is online.

Also, are you planning on having all bars closed at all times? Or do you assume that the players desire for a bar fight will vanish at the first sign of trouble?

Me too. But but the point here is the players are not looking for a good fight....they utterly just want to waste time.

If it's something they enjoy I doubt it's a waste of time for them. Besides, my point was that you can turn most things into something valuable for all, so it turns out NOT to be a waste of time. Including a simple bar fight.

That would be an odd feeling, and I'd wonder how and why you'd get it? Defeating the Bandits of Bunglewood is event A. So if character wants to Defeat the Bandits of Bunglewood they must do event A. It does not really matter ''how'' it is done, as long as it gets done. Though the setting, rules and abilities of the characters will limit the ''ways'' it can be done. If your character does not have the power to telekineticly grab the moon out of orbit and drop it on the bandits....then the character can't do that(so cross one way off the list). The bandits have a hideout at location X, so it is likely you might need to go to that location to defeat them, as that is where they are.

You wonder how and why you'd get it? Easy. If I feel like I'm simply following a laid-out railroading path to solution.

Where do you get this ''one'' job? Even the rules of games with DM's don't say anything like that, and most list at least a couple jobs the DM does or has. You should be more clear that your ''one job'' idea is your own personal homebrew.

Fair enough. I should have said "one goal". The one goal should be to make the game enjoyable for the players.

I'd never do anything UNFUN.

Uhm, really? What if this UNFUN thing will lead to FUN later on? Isn't that part of the "hard fun" you've been proposing? Which is kind of dependent on you deliberately making something unfun in the present for a potential fun in the future.

And here is the big problem everyone seems to have:

*Everything a player wishes to happen on a whim must be possible, changing the game reality if needed, and must always succeed and have the outcome the player wants.

*Anything the DM does ever is wrong, unless they do what the players want, that has the outcome the players want.

Hilariously, everyone is saying they agree and approve of the idea that the players ''must'' Railroad the DM.

That's not what anyone has said ever. Which we have told you on multiple occasions. Why is it that you never read those sentences when we say "that's not what we are saying"?

We are not trying to make you a slave to the player's whims, we are are trying to make sure your players are not a slave to YOUR whims. There's a middle ground there which you seem to be completely blind to.

I agree that it is better to simply not give the players choices....lol.

Which is what you need to tell your players in advance. Something like "hey guys, I'm not going to give you any choices, mmkay?".

As long as you are open with "I think player agency is a bunch of horse****" before you start playing, we have no issues with your games. (we can still have issues with other things you say, but at least we won't have any with your games)

I really don't get the idea that the only way to play the game is to have the Players Railroad the game against the DM.

That isn't the idea. The idea is that noone railroads anyone. Not the DM, not the players. NO RAILROADING AT ALL! Get it?

Pleh

2017-10-21, 05:35 AM

I do understand giving the players the illusion of choice.

Sadly a great many players, let alone people are reasonable. Like tell a player you don't want to do a ''commoner bar fight'' and they spend the next six hours whining and complaing about it. But, amazingly, if the DM does even a tiny bit of good railroading ''oh sorry the bar is closed'', you know in that false way where the players ''agree with it'', then there is no problem.

We need to abandon the idea that there is "good railroading." It makes clarifying the distinction from bad railroading less clear.

In the bar fight example, "the bar is closed" isn't railroading. It's a reasonable consequence of player choices.

"We go to start a bar fight." Reasonable choice.

"The bar is closed." Reasonable choice.

"We wait for it to open." Reasonable choice, if strange.

"I'm sorry, I mean the bar is out of business." Reasonable choice, though strangely unlikely.

"We find an open bar." Reasonable choice.

"All bars are closed." NOT reasonable. Needs justification.

"...because the state has enforced prohibition." Reasonable, but this information is too little, too late. Setting information should be upfront, if not in the game setup, then at least this should have been stated when the players first said, "we go start a bar fight." We have strayed from reasonable DM choices to sloppy DM tactics.

Very sloppy, because the players can still say, "I roll Gather Information to find the nearest speakeasy." This is reasonable.

Better DM tactics would identify the problem around the "we wait for the bar to open" step. The DM identifies they are stuck on this concept and should work with it rather than saying, "nope, guess again."

"A patrolling guard notices you have been loitering all day and senses that you're looking for trouble. He approaches you and asks you to vacate the town." Very reasonable, but don't be surprised if the murderheroes butcher the poor guard.

Better answer is bringing the plot hook to the players: "As you wait for the bar to open you notice an old man sitting across the street looking [plot hook]."

Instead of saying, "no" we're saying, "how about this instead?" This is not any kind of railroading.

Cluedrew

2017-10-21, 07:21 AM

And I'm not saying you can't have fun with a casual improve game, but it's not the same ''type'' of fun as a complicated game with a plot. Both Checkers and Chess are fun games to play, but they are not the same ''type'' of fun.People take issue with it because although you say that they are both fine, you use degrading terminology and imagery to describe one of those options. Suggesting you don't actually think that.

Regardless, I'm going to ask again "what makes your game fun?" So far your answer has been a resounding {Crickets Chirping} which tells me very little. Considering the amount of stuff you have said since I first asked the question I don't think it is a matter of time. High level view, 1-4 sentences should be enough.

"I'm sorry, I mean the bar is out of business." Reasonable choice, though strangely unlikely.Only if it was actually a misspeak, if you changed your mind to deny the players' choice then no, that is not reasonable.

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-21, 07:39 AM

People take issue with it because although you say that they are both fine, you use degrading terminology and imagery to describe one of those options. Suggesting you don't actually think that.

He says it in the same way that one might say "If someone likes eating steaming bowls of crap, that's their business".

It's nothing but loaded terminology and doublespeak, all the way down... "normal game" for his self-absorbed bullying, "casual game" for how almost everyone else runs their games.

Regardless, I'm going to ask again "what makes your game fun?" So far your answer has been a resounding {Crickets Chirping} which tells me very little. Considering the amount of stuff you have said since I first asked the question I don't think it is a matter of time. High level view, 1-4 sentences should be enough.

He can't explain why his games are fun, because they aren't.

Or rather, they're only fun for him and that's all he cares about, everyone else can either be part of making it fun for him, or they're a "tyrant player" or a "bad player".

He's solipsism at its "finest".

Remember, this is the "person" who thinks that putting statuettes of leaders of the Treason to Maintain Slavery Confederacy on the table in front of him when he GMs is a proper and amusing way to drive off "bad players".

Alcore

2017-10-21, 07:51 AM

People say this, because unless you are a big baby who only care about winning in every game you play, the players having fun is YOU having fun.

After every session we ask our DM "did you have fun?" and he always replies with "did you have fun? If so, then I had fun."

That is fundamental to playing D&D. Failure to adopt a mindset like this is a sign of immaturity.

I see the mature mindset is everyone has fun. Not your way of ''the only way the DM has fun, is the players having fun''. That makes no sense. Your way has the DM be just a slave to the players. i agree with DU here (excepting the last sentence). Fulfilling, satisfied and happy? Sure but that still isn't necessarily fun.

I'm at the table, am i really immature for wanting something fun? Forgive the strawman there, I'll reshape it; if i like a world with deep lore and the players only want to burn pillage and power game is it wrong or immature for me to enjoy the lore? Trick question. If i force them they won't have fun and if i let them do as they please I'll feel crushed by the end.

Mordaedil your post has no middle ground and DUs problem is unable to comprehend that mddle ground. One person not having fun bleeds off onto the others.

Feel free to scroll back a page and look.

And obviously the DM is not a Player. Any game with a DM makes this very clear in the rules. Sure you can bend and twist words and say the DM is playing the game, but the DM is still not playing the game as a Player, they play the game as a DM. no thank you; my sanity won't survive another trip.

That is the universal lesson engraved in RPGs. The DM is separate from the player. Both groups have to meet somewhere (usually the middle) so both groups can have fun but they are still separate.

I agree it is ideal, but few Players think this way. The vast majority of players are only in the game for themselves. After all, things like Player Agency are only about the player.quite right but more than you think. DM can still say no and still have the freedom to say yes. Your problem is seeing it as giving in.

It makes perfect sense.

You can put it in reverse.

What does it say about the DM in the case of "the DM has fun but the players do not"? The only way the DM SHOULD have fun in the game is IF the players have fun.

HOWEVER, and now comes the important bit.it does NOT make sense. You even tell us so (or at least rephrare it to a more correct wording)! Then you go on to explain how! (That part unquoted)

[So to reiterate; if your players are not having fun, that's a big failure for you. And it's not the kind of failure you should be happy with.quite right! :smallsmile:

Pleh

2017-10-21, 09:09 AM

Only if it was actually a misspeak, if you changed your mind to deny the players' choice then no, that is not reasonable.

I agree mostly. There is some slack for a DM to Quantum Ogre the solution spontaneously. It's not great, but passable if it doesn't happen too frequently.

That's what I mean by Reasonable here. It's probably within acceptable tolerances, even if this one particular step is pushing those boundaries.

georgie_leech

2017-10-21, 10:25 AM

I agree mostly. There is some slack for a DM to Quantum Ogre the solution spontaneously. It's not great, but passable if it doesn't happen too frequently.

That's what I mean by Reasonable here. It's probably within acceptable tolerances, even if this one particular step is pushing those boundaries.

So long as they don't Chief Circle their way into having bars basically be a thing when the players make plans around there not being any bars.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-21, 11:45 AM

Darth Ultron, since you strongly believe in not allowing the Players to play the game, why do you conspire to dupe them into watching you play with yourself? How awfully dull and UNFUN.

Well, ''the game'' is not what you think it is.

What if your players want an actual choice though? Shouldn't you tailor make the game for them and giving them real choices instead?

Yes, the players should all ways be given the illusion of choice. An ''actual'' choice is not possible in a fictional game world, so if the players don't understand that...that is their problem.

I only play with, and hang out with, reasonable people. The only time I spend time on unreasonable people is online.

Part of the communication problem is people are different.

*You, for example have a small closed group circle of people you know that are all reasonable and all agree with everything.

*Others, like me, travel in dozens and dozes of circles with lots of diverse people of all types.

Also, are you planning on having all bars closed at all times? Or do you assume that the players desire for a bar fight will vanish at the first sign of trouble?

Nah, that was just an example. The Railroad has many tracks. My personal favorite is building mimics.

If it's something they enjoy I doubt it's a waste of time for them. Besides, my point was that you can turn most things into something valuable for all, so it turns out NOT to be a waste of time. Including a simple bar fight.

Just as someone enjoys something does not make it not a waste of time.

And sure, like I said, you can cave in to the players and ''quantum ogre'' the Happy Harvest Tavern from ''just a commoner place'' to an ''awesome encounter'', even if that makes no sense.

You wonder how and why you'd get it? Easy. If I feel like I'm simply following a laid-out railroading path to solution.

Right, the treasure is burred at spot x. You need to find where spot x is, go there, and dig up the treasure.

Your way of ''the treasure is somewhere'', then you can just say ''the treasure is at spot y " then you walk over to spot Y and the treasure is there with a bow on top it it...is wrong and not even a game.

Fair enough. I should have said "one goal". The one goal should be to make the game enjoyable for the players.

Still odd you ''only have one''.

Uhm, really? What if this UNFUN thing will lead to FUN later on? Isn't that part of the "hard fun" you've been proposing? Which is kind of dependent on you deliberately making something unfun in the present for a potential fun in the future.

Well, then I agree, as I have said.

That's not what anyone has said ever. Which we have told you on multiple occasions. Why is it that you never read those sentences when we say "that's not what we are saying"?

Well, as soon as someone says ''that is not what I'm saying'', then then ''say that'', often in the same post.

We are not trying to make you a slave to the player's whims, we are are trying to make sure your players are not a slave to YOUR whims. There's a middle ground there which you seem to be completely blind to.

Everyone ''loves'' to say middle ground, but that assumes the game is 50/50, when in reality it is 75/25. You can only have a middle ground if the players controlled half the game, but they don't.

Which is what you need to tell your players in advance. Something like "hey guys, I'm not going to give you any choices, mmkay?".

Not a problem, I'm very open about being a Railraoding DM.

As long as you are open with "I think player agency is a bunch of horse****" before you start playing, we have no issues with your games. (we can still have issues with other things you say, but at least we won't have any with your games)

I'm a very open person. Like ''if you believe in Player Agency, this is not the game for you, leave now."

Instead of saying, "no" we're saying, "how about this instead?" This is not any kind of railroading.

The flaw I see with all this is the ''how'' question. It is the DM asking the players to agree. And this goes back to it only works if the players like it and agree with it.

And the simple fact is: everything will not all ways be exactly the way someone or a group likes or agrees with.

And that does not even bring in the ''reasonable problem'' . The DM thinks ''x'' is reasonable, but the players think that it is. And there is no ''right or wrong'' as it will all ways just be an personal view. But in the game frame work (not to mention the rules) if the DM says X is X, it is.

People take issue with it because although you say that they are both fine, you use degrading terminology and imagery to describe one of those options. Suggesting you don't actually think that.

I don't really see where the ''degrading'' comes from...other then personal problems a person might have themselves.

*Checkers is a very simple game, it has a handful of rules, and it is fun to play.
*Chess is a very complex game, it has a lot of rules, and it is fun to play.

The two games are not the same, neither is better then the other, they are just different.

There is a difference in the type of person that plays each game, and the reason they play:

*Just about any person over the age of five can play Checkers and the most common reasons to do so are to ''do something/fill up some time'' and ''have fun''.

*Only intelligent orderly logic based people can play Chess with even a slight bit of proficiency(sure, anyone can move the pieces around the board...but they will last a handful of moves vs a real good Chess player and they will never, ever win) . And the most common reason to play Chess is to ''test ones self vs an opponent'' and ''have fun''.

So again, different, but neither is better. The average person that really likes Checkers, does not like Chess; and the average person that likes Chess, does not like checkers. And as the games and the people that play them are both very different, this is normal. And the average Chess player can play Checkers proficiently no problem, but the average Checkers player can't play Chess with even a slight bit of proficiency.

Regardless, I'm going to ask again "what makes your game fun?" So far your answer has been a resounding {Crickets Chirping} which tells me very little. Considering the amount of stuff you have said since I first asked the question I don't think it is a matter of time. High level view, 1-4 sentences should be enough.

Only if it was actually a misspeak, if you changed your mind to deny the players' choice then no, that is not reasonable.

What makes my game fun is the wild, epic, fast paced journey through an adventure. You can make a character and have an exciting time in the game world full of tension as you over come problems and challenges to get to a goal in the adventure. The game play will be very immersive and have a good story as you interact with a vast living game multiverse.

I guess that is an answer, if it helps any.

OldTrees1

2017-10-21, 12:06 PM

Well, ''the game'' is not what you think it is.

I, and the rest of this thread, know it to be a cooperative game where one person creates a campaign and multiple people are faced with meaningful choices that they respond to.

You are deluded into thinking it is a "Dupe people into playing "Guess the script the DM wrote for your character or get kicked out" when they think they signed up for playing an RPG". Aka an unenjoyable and maliciously designed con. If you believe PCs should not get choices (and you did say so, see below), why not replace the Players with a pencil? You are playing by yourself already, might as well write the novel rather than trick people into watching you play with yourself.

I do understand giving the players the illusion of choice.

I'd never do anything UNFUN.

I agree that it is better to simply not give the players choices....lol.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-21, 12:08 PM

I, and the rest of this thread, know it to be a cooperative game where one person creates a campaign and multiple people are faced with meaningful choices that they respond to.

Yup, that is the problem right there, all right.

OldTrees1

2017-10-21, 12:15 PM

I do understand giving the players the illusion of choice.

I'd never do anything UNFUN.

I agree that it is better to simply not give the players choices....lol.

I, and the rest of this thread, know it to be a cooperative game where one person creates a campaign and multiple people are faced with meaningful choices that they respond to.

Yup, that is the problem right there, all right.

If the Players are not given choices, then they are not really playing. Why do you want an audience to watch you play with yourself? If the players have no choices then they are not interacting with the medium and thus you would not even notice if they were not there. Unless you have some need to have people watch you play with yourself. Why do you need an audience so badly that you would go as far as to dupe other people?

Pleh

2017-10-21, 12:24 PM

The flaw I see with all this is the ''how'' question. It is the DM asking the players to agree. And this goes back to it only works if the players like it and agree with it.

And the simple fact is: everything will not all ways be exactly the way someone or a group likes or agrees with.

Yes, but when the game breaks down as far as you're implying, that's when a healthy group discusses problems ooc. Only toxic tables try to fix it in game. Using railroading to push players uninspired by your story is just flat out bad DMing.

Cluedrew

2017-10-21, 12:55 PM

What makes my game fun is the wild, epic, fast paced journey through an adventure. You can make a character and have an exciting time in the game world full of tension as you over come problems and challenges to get to a goal in the adventure. The game play will be very immersive and have a good story as you interact with a vast living game multiverse.

I guess that is an answer, if it helps any.It is indeed the sort of answer I was looking for.

... Were you expecting me to use this as some sort of bomb to tear you apart?

So again, different, but neither is better. [...] And the average Chess player can play Checkers proficiently no problem, but the average Checkers player can't play Chess with even a slight bit of proficiency.You honestly can't see how your the second part contradicts the first. In the second part put an hierarchy of ability on them and chess is higher on that scale. In any group that values skill, that makes it better.

Although I would agree that anyone who can run a good improvised adventure can run a good pre-planned adventure. All you are asking at that point is to use some of the work that has been done ahead of time instead of on the spot. Which is not to say that there aren't benefits to some pre-planning. Creating a module for others to run uses different skill set, but I'm not exactly sure what it is. It is missing the performance aspects and does require you to act with a lot more unknowns, but I'm not sure what that works out to in the end.

Max_Killjoy

2017-10-21, 01:02 PM

Segev

2017-10-21, 01:42 PM

I do understand giving the players the illusion of choice. And yet, that doesn't respond to what Lorsa said, since she at no point described illusory choices in the bit you quoted before writing this line.

The journey in a game is not the same as a real life journey. Games are fiction, real life is real. You make this claim, then fail to explain how it is relevant. I therefore assert that it is not relevant and you're just trying to avoid answering the question.

I agree that it is better to simply not give the players choices....lol.Then why have players? Just play the PCs, yourself.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-21, 04:16 PM

Yes, but when the game breaks down as far as you're implying, that's when a healthy group discusses problems ooc. Only toxic tables try to fix it in game. Using railroading to push players uninspired by your story is just flat out bad DMing.

Right so the choice is to sit around and talk OR play the game? I pick: play the game.

You honestly can't see how your the second part contradicts the first. In the second part put an hierarchy of ability on them and chess is higher on that scale. In any group that values skill, that makes it better.

To be fair, you adding the hierarchy....I typed lots of times that different is not better.

This is also something entirely different from you describe (directly or indirectly) in 99% of your posting.

True, as here I'm describing my game. My posts in this thread are only about Railroading. And Railroading is only part of my game.

And maybe 99% of readers are reading my posts wrong and with bias.

And yet, that doesn't respond to what Lorsa said, since she at no point described illusory choices in the bit you quoted before writing this line.

Well, the Lorsa example was that they make ''many'' ways to solve a problem...in this example the lair has ''many'' ways in. So the players are free to pick from one of the ways the DM made: Illusion of choice.

Or take the other Lorsa way: the casual way. They make the lair, then stop and say ''ok, players tell me how you want to get in''. Then, no matter what the players say, the DM will Quantum Ogre it. Again, illusion of choice.

You make this claim, then fail to explain how it is relevant. I therefore assert that it is not relevant and you're just trying to avoid answering the question.

Guess I did not feel the need to explain how real life is different from a game.

Then why have players? Just play the PCs, yourself.

You oddly seem to think players are just choice demi gods, or something.

OldTrees1

2017-10-21, 05:34 PM

I do understand giving the players the illusion of choice.

I'd never do anything UNFUN.

I agree that it is better to simply not give the players choices....lol.
Then why have players? Just play the PCs, yourself.

You oddly seem to think players are just choice demi gods, or something.

I, and the rest of this thread, know it to be a cooperative game where one person creates a campaign and multiple people are faced with meaningful choices that they respond to.

Yup, that is the problem right there, all right.

If the Players are not given choices, then they are not really playing. Why do you want an audience to watch you play with yourself? If the players have no choices then they are not interacting with the medium and thus you would not even notice if they were not there. Unless you have some need to have people watch you play with yourself. Why do you need an audience so badly that you would go as far as to dupe other people?

Cluedrew

2017-10-21, 07:08 PM

To be fair, you adding the hierarchy....I typed lots of times that different is not better.No I didn't, you added it, time and time again. No matter how often you say "different is not better" if you accompany each statement with another that contradicts that, no one is going to believe you. Even if it is unknowingly.

Pleh

2017-10-21, 07:25 PM

Right so the choice is to sit around and talk OR play the game? I pick: play the game.

You have chosen poorly.

This is about the same idea as, "I've blown out a tire. Should I stop and switch it with the spare or drive on to my destination and replace the wheel later?"

I bet you'd blame the wheel for not being built of a finer construction. A "good" wheel wouldn't have been so easily damaged by driving with a blown tire for miles on end.

Continuing a game with a deep seated OOC problem, compensating with In Game solutions is just plain bad DMing.

Your unwillingness to stop a game to talk to players about problems with the game only further proves how wildly unnecessary the players are in the game. They aren't playing. They're just watching you play. This is really bad DMing.

You place a higher priority of your game over your players, like placing a higher priority on the Joy Ride than on the condition of the Car that conveys your journey.

In actual DMing, the Players are the point. Their fun is your fun. You don't have fun when they aren't having fun. The game can't continue without their decisions and input. When the game really CAN just keep going without them, it isn't really roleplaying anymore. You're just orating at that point.

I can already tell from this conversation that you are not as good at it as you think you are.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-21, 08:39 PM

No I didn't, you added it, time and time again. No matter how often you say "different is not better" if you accompany each statement with another that contradicts that, no one is going to believe you. Even if it is unknowingly.

Well, this is a bit like your saying that no matter what I say or type you will all ways just believe what you want to believe. So you can either accept what I say/type, your just believe whatever you want to believe. So where does that leave us?

Continuing a game with a deep seated OOC problem, compensating with In Game solutions is just plain bad DMing.

Except it is only a deeply seated problem for you, and people like you....and you would not be in my game anyway.

I'm aware of the idea that ''in game solutions'' don't work: the silly Goon law or whatever. I also know this to be a lie and false. In fact ''in game solutions'' can often work very well.

Your unwillingness to stop a game to talk to players about problems with the game only further proves how wildly unnecessary the players are in the game. They aren't playing. They're just watching you play. This is really bad DMing.

I know some people like to ''sort of'' play the game for like five minutes...and then stop playing the game and talk and talk and talk and hug and cry for the next couple hours. I really don't get such people. But I don't judge, I know some people would much rather talk about the game in a big group hug then play the game itself.

I can already tell from this conversation that you are not as good at it as you think you are.

This is true, as I'm just so good, but also humble.

GreatKaiserNui

2017-10-22, 02:41 AM

This is true, as I'm just so good, but also humble.

A humble person would agree to disagree and close the thread.

Cluedrew

2017-10-22, 07:10 AM

Well, this is a bit like your saying that no matter what I say or type you will all ways just believe what you want to believe. So you can either accept what I say/type, your just believe whatever you want to believe. So where does that leave us?Ah... you do realize that the reason I bring this up is because you said/typed two contradictory things in your post and it is impossible for me to believe both of them at the same time. And now you too must decide if you will believe me, or just believe whatever you want to believe.

Ultimately I have to believe what the analysis of my experiences. Sometimes this might not be what you believe, and sometimes it is a hard truth I would rather not be. Life isn't convenient enough to always come out the way I want it to. Still I'm not special in that regard.

Pleh

2017-10-22, 07:19 AM

This is true, as I'm just so good, but also humble.

Up to this point, I thought you actually believed the things you were saying.

My mistake. Carry on.

Darth Ultron

2017-10-22, 11:25 AM

Ah... you do realize that the reason I bring this up is because you said/typed two contradictory things in your post and it is impossible for me to believe both of them at the same time. And now you too must decide if you will believe me, or just believe whatever you want to believe.

But where do you see a contradiction?

1.The Casual Game: The DM does no or only a little preparation. The game has either no plot, or a very, very, very simple one. The game is very easy and relaxed, for both the DM and the players. Generally any event in the game is meant to take a sort time, maybe a couple weeks at the most. People laugh, have fun and toss some dice.

2.The Multiplex Game: The DM does a ton of preparation. The game has a plot, very often many plots and sometimes very, very, very complex plots. The game is a hard challenge and intense, for both the DM and the players. Events in the game can take an open ended amount of time, and the plot(s) can often take a year ot more to finish. People have fun, play through the plot(s) and play the game.

Both are very common ways to play the game. They are both different, and neither is better.

And, different types of people like to play each game, this is true of all games (and really all things). So some people like to show up for a game, toss some dice around to ''slay a dragon'', high five each other, and go home. Some people like to go for the deep immersion of of a long game plot where the players have to defeat an lich lord king.

And, yes, anyone can play the Causal game. Show up, roll some dice and have fun. Not everyone can play a Multiplex game, and not just as they don't want to. Though this is true with most things in life.

OldTrees1

2017-10-22, 11:47 AM

But where do you see a contradiction?

Where to start, where to start?
1) You use a derogatory tone towards anything that differs from you but claim to preach "different is not better".

-This is the one you were supposed to respond to, if you had any interest in an honest discussion-

2) If we give an example of your railroading you call it jerk DM railroading. But if you give the same example you insist it is something every DM must do.
3) You claim to be a skilled DM, but you keep displaying your ignorance and incompetence
4) You claim to use a very selective filter on the players you accept, you claim that your players enjoy your games, and all we hear are you citing how every player you meet is a bad player that you needed to kick out of your group.
5) You say those you kick out were bad players, but most of your descriptions were them being fed up being a passive audience while watching you play with yourself.
6) You think you are playing an RPG but you only have an audience rather than players.

jayem

2017-10-22, 12:04 PM

As a vague try back at the Quanta, there are multiple plot-constraining devices and each of them have different levels.
But trying to give a points system (hypothetical examples are based along finding the bad guys meeting in a hotel), a repeated use counts double
Take with generous lashings of salt.

If for each section of the story (say a moderately sized corridor)...
[N.B the top half of the different categories here, more or less align with DU's options (I've called his simplestory a signposted one), the bottom half would lead to genuinely random/wacky outcomes].

All doors off the one true path are permanently locked and indestructible - railroading/walling 200 railroad points.
All doors off the one true path are locked or shortly lead to a dead end - busrouting/fencing 10 railroad points
Each locked door/dead end encountered - 1 railroad point (no doubling as it's perfectly fair play, the 'penalty' is to keep you aware that the players can't see, and to make it impossible to get no points, so you don't over try)
No locked doors/dead ends anywhere - overly open 10 railroad points
+ helipads, metro station and telepads in the hotel - taking the piss 200 railroad points

The nth room you go into is the right room - quantumquestogre 200 railroad points
The minor rooms are pre-described and interchangable - quantumexchangeogre 10 railroad points
??? (neutral game)
Room 205 contains the only letter about your heritage - Fixed quest 10 railroad points
Room 301 contains someone desperately seeking you with vital info, but if you don't go in it they never try to find you again - Being silly 200 railroad points

There is a sign saying 'secret entrance to bad guys conference ->' - Satnavving 200 points
The receptionist talks about the thugs on the nth, a waitress talks about taking food to floor n up the back elevator - Signposting 10 points
For each clue encountered 1 point (no doubling again a perfect game should build up points)
No obvious clues, the players must take deliberate actions for each clue - Clueless 10 railroad points
There are literally no indications that it's a secret meet, even in the room the codes that good -> stupidly clueless 200 railroad points

The DM OOC whines/begs/threatens the players to take a certain action - JerkDM 200 points
The DM points out there is a third floor - Metagaming 10 points
The DM has to clarify/etc... (1 point)
The DM has to invent significant details to answer a players question (is there a balcony in this beach hotel?) - Badplanning 10 points [NB saying no would potentially get more points via busrouting, points aren't bad]
The DM changes the world fundamentally/nonsensically because of the players OOG requests "this hotel has a secret underground bunker" - Tyrantplayer 200 points [NB fate points, where applicable, are OOcharacter not OOgame]

If by the time you reach the next 200 points checkpoint, you can point to some interaction and plot development, that players (PC's and DM) are happy etc... and it's been a reasonable length of time then you can remove 1 or 2 levels of doubling from each category. If things run away so checkpoints become close then there is clearly deeper (and more observable) problems than if things remain just about manageable.

[Example: 4 corridors of locked/boring rooms would give you 10+20+40+80=150 points, at this point if the other players are calling 'boring railroad', they haven't made any choices and no plot has happened then the other players are probably right.
Even if things seem good if this was immediately followed by 3 more corridors, then you'd hit the next checkpoint quickly at 40+80+160, should give an indication, to really consider things carefully.